Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear

[Loswr]

Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines

Like I said, the horse is dead. Dead, and beaten so extensively no one can tell where the horse ends and the dirt begins. You won't convince anyone, nor will I, and we won't be convinced. Where does that leave us? Well...I don't know where it leaves you, but I've got better things to do than drag that poor, pathetic equine carcass from thread to thread for another useless beating. I ran my bat through the wood chipper.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.

<sigh />

Here's the very top Google hit:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml

To my eye, the Nikon ISO 3200 shot has about as much noise as the Canon ISO 25,600 shot. I wouldn't use ISO 6400 for serious stuff on the Nikon, but I don't think much about going to 12,800 on the Canon.

Yes, yes. The Nikon has more megapickles and thus more resolution and thus can resolve finer details. We know that. And we also know that the Nikon has more dynamic range, so you can better recover a badly underexposed image with a Nikon than with a Canon. We don't care. Those who do care, if they have any brains at all, have already bought a D800.

All that's at most only tangentially related to high ISO performance, which is the subject you're mysteriously pig-headedly tilting at windmills about...and, frankly, there the Canon blows the Nikon out of the water.

And, yes. The D800 is a wonderful camera, a great camera to consider if you're looking for something to bridge the gap between 135 and medium format, especially for studio and landscape and other low ISO work.

But we really don't need yet more Nikonistas telling us how, like, totally awesomes it is, thankyouverymuch. We know, we're happy for you, and we really don't care much beyond that.

It would be rude of us to keep boasting about the 5DIII's autofocus performance and high ISO performance and silent shutter and what-not over on a Nikon forum. I don't know if others do that; I don't visit Nikon forums. I hope they don't. But it's just as equally rude for Nikonistas to brag about the D800's megapickles and DR, and, frankly, we're generally sick of it over here in Canon land.

Cheers,

b&

 

[CanoSony]

OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.

Physician, kettle, mote, etc.

I and thousands others had thousands of exposures on our 5DIIIs long before you could even officially pre-order a 1Dx. And the D800 is many wonderful things, but it only surpasses the 5DIII in megapickle count and dynamic range -- its autofocus is far shy of the 5DIII's -- as are almost all of its other features. That you should suggest it's got better autofocus than the 5DIII...and then start whipping the dead dynamic range horse and claiming the D800 has better high ISO performance....

...yeah. Troll.

Even if you're not intentionally trolling, which I rather doubt by now, you're still trolling.

Cheers,

b&

Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines while people argue against my FACTS with their OPINIONS. I have been killed on this board for using my opinion to make arguments many times. I presented factual numbers from DXOMARK. I explained that I don't think they are the best numbers, but they are at least numbers by a lab. What have you used for your argument, 100% opinion.
The D800 was measured as having better high ISO performance than the 5DIII.
I'm not saying it's a better camera, i'm simply saying that YOU ARE USING OPINION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE 5DIII has better HIGH ISO performance?
Are you even reading my posts? I never said the D800 has better AF. I said the 1DX has better AF and that it was announced before the 5DIII. Whether it was available or not at the time, there was never any doubt in my mind that the AF of the 1DX would be superior.
You guys just spent a page killing our newcomer for not agreeing with you, all the while you have ignored that I presented numbers showing the D800 has better high ISO performance. I never mentioned DR in any earlier posts as I agree it is has been overblown(pardon the pun), however I don't discount it's importance. It's obviously better to have good DR than not to.
How did you rebuke the high ISO dxomark scores? by yeling, "Troll" "Troll" "troll"
TrumpetPower, please show me numbers, not opinions, but factual evidence from anywhere showing that the 5DIII is better at high ISO? I'm curious to see why you are so positive that the 5DIII is better.

As I said in earlier posts, I don't really care all that much for DXOMark, but I don't know where else to turn for lab measured numbers on cameras.
Also, people on this board can bash DXOmark scores all they want, but when Admin posted this thread with false 1DX scores, people were thrilled to gloat about the superior scores of the 1DX.... until they found out the numbers were false, when they went back to hating DXO. lol! http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10075.0
You can disagree with me all you want, it's fine. But please don't call me a troll when i'm at least trying to give evidence. All you have given us is your opinion.
Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.

What are you trying to achieve?

To show that my opinions based on facts are being lambasted by simple opinions with no facts?

DR comparison

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

 

[TrumpetPower!]

DR comparison

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

Sorry, Neuro, but you're worng on this one. Dead worng.

The horse is dead, yes, but not beaten into the dust. Far from it. It's very much intact, and it wants braaaaaiiiiiiinnnnnnssssss.

Incidentally, it's fascinating how many times I see people link to Fred's page without also noting his conclusion:

As you can see from my samples, I mostly stuck with the Canon Mark III on this trip. Mainly because of the difficulty I faced with Nikon D800's poor LCD Live View performance in low light. For my photography needs, this was the Achilles' heel of an otherwise superb camera. But, if you don't rely on live view, then this will never be an issue for you. Aside from that, my only other desire would be for Nikon to release an ultra wide-angle tilt and shift lens and upgrade the current PC-E lenses so that the shift and tilt could be rotated independently.

And that, incidentally, perfectly matches up with why most people who prefer Canon to Nikon do so. Sure, the Nikon camera has a marginally better sensor that can be used as a not-miserable digital fill flash or to recover badly underexposed pictures. But the Canon is a better camera and the lenses are far superior.

If all you care about is the sensor, then the Nikon's for you. But if the sensor is just one small piece of the puzzle, you'll find that the Canon sensor is just fine, thankyouverymuch, and much better in low light, askshually, and everything not related to the sensor is better with the Canon.

Cheers,

b&

 

[RLPhoto]

OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.

Physician, kettle, mote, etc.

I and thousands others had thousands of exposures on our 5DIIIs long before you could even officially pre-order a 1Dx. And the D800 is many wonderful things, but it only surpasses the 5DIII in megapickle count and dynamic range -- its autofocus is far shy of the 5DIII's -- as are almost all of its other features. That you should suggest it's got better autofocus than the 5DIII...and then start whipping the dead dynamic range horse and claiming the D800 has better high ISO performance....

...yeah. Troll.

Even if you're not intentionally trolling, which I rather doubt by now, you're still trolling.

Cheers,

b&

Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines while people argue against my FACTS with their OPINIONS. I have been killed on this board for using my opinion to make arguments many times. I presented factual numbers from DXOMARK. I explained that I don't think they are the best numbers, but they are at least numbers by a lab. What have you used for your argument, 100% opinion.
The D800 was measured as having better high ISO performance than the 5DIII.
I'm not saying it's a better camera, i'm simply saying that YOU ARE USING OPINION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE 5DIII has better HIGH ISO performance?
Are you even reading my posts? I never said the D800 has better AF. I said the 1DX has better AF and that it was announced before the 5DIII. Whether it was available or not at the time, there was never any doubt in my mind that the AF of the 1DX would be superior.
You guys just spent a page killing our newcomer for not agreeing with you, all the while you have ignored that I presented numbers showing the D800 has better high ISO performance. I never mentioned DR in any earlier posts as I agree it is has been overblown(pardon the pun), however I don't discount it's importance. It's obviously better to have good DR than not to.
How did you rebuke the high ISO dxomark scores? by yeling, "Troll" "Troll" "troll"
TrumpetPower, please show me numbers, not opinions, but factual evidence from anywhere showing that the 5DIII is better at high ISO? I'm curious to see why you are so positive that the 5DIII is better.

As I said in earlier posts, I don't really care all that much for DXOMark, but I don't know where else to turn for lab measured numbers on cameras.
Also, people on this board can bash DXOmark scores all they want, but when Admin posted this thread with false 1DX scores, people were thrilled to gloat about the superior scores of the 1DX.... until they found out the numbers were false, when they went back to hating DXO. lol! http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10075.0
You can disagree with me all you want, it's fine. But please don't call me a troll when i'm at least trying to give evidence. All you have given us is your opinion.
Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.

What are you trying to achieve?

To show that my opinions based on facts are being lambasted by simple opinions with no facts?

DR comparison

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

How's those photos coming along?

 

[CanoSony]

OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.

Physician, kettle, mote, etc.

I and thousands others had thousands of exposures on our 5DIIIs long before you could even officially pre-order a 1Dx. And the D800 is many wonderful things, but it only surpasses the 5DIII in megapickle count and dynamic range -- its autofocus is far shy of the 5DIII's -- as are almost all of its other features. That you should suggest it's got better autofocus than the 5DIII...and then start whipping the dead dynamic range horse and claiming the D800 has better high ISO performance....

...yeah. Troll.

Even if you're not intentionally trolling, which I rather doubt by now, you're still trolling.

Cheers,

b&

Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines while people argue against my FACTS with their OPINIONS. I have been killed on this board for using my opinion to make arguments many times. I presented factual numbers from DXOMARK. I explained that I don't think they are the best numbers, but they are at least numbers by a lab. What have you used for your argument, 100% opinion.
The D800 was measured as having better high ISO performance than the 5DIII.
I'm not saying it's a better camera, i'm simply saying that YOU ARE USING OPINION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE 5DIII has better HIGH ISO performance?
Are you even reading my posts? I never said the D800 has better AF. I said the 1DX has better AF and that it was announced before the 5DIII. Whether it was available or not at the time, there was never any doubt in my mind that the AF of the 1DX would be superior.
You guys just spent a page killing our newcomer for not agreeing with you, all the while you have ignored that I presented numbers showing the D800 has better high ISO performance. I never mentioned DR in any earlier posts as I agree it is has been overblown(pardon the pun), however I don't discount it's importance. It's obviously better to have good DR than not to.
How did you rebuke the high ISO dxomark scores? by yeling, "Troll" "Troll" "troll"
TrumpetPower, please show me numbers, not opinions, but factual evidence from anywhere showing that the 5DIII is better at high ISO? I'm curious to see why you are so positive that the 5DIII is better.

As I said in earlier posts, I don't really care all that much for DXOMark, but I don't know where else to turn for lab measured numbers on cameras.
Also, people on this board can bash DXOmark scores all they want, but when Admin posted this thread with false 1DX scores, people were thrilled to gloat about the superior scores of the 1DX.... until they found out the numbers were false, when they went back to hating DXO. lol! http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10075.0
You can disagree with me all you want, it's fine. But please don't call me a troll when i'm at least trying to give evidence. All you have given us is your opinion.
Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.

What are you trying to achieve?

To show that my opinions based on facts are being lambasted by simple opinions with no facts?

DR comparison

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

How's those photos coming along?

I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.

Physician, kettle, mote, etc.

I and thousands others had thousands of exposures on our 5DIIIs long before you could even officially pre-order a 1Dx. And the D800 is many wonderful things, but it only surpasses the 5DIII in megapickle count and dynamic range -- its autofocus is far shy of the 5DIII's -- as are almost all of its other features. That you should suggest it's got better autofocus than the 5DIII...and then start whipping the dead dynamic range horse and claiming the D800 has better high ISO performance....

...yeah. Troll.

Even if you're not intentionally trolling, which I rather doubt by now, you're still trolling.

Cheers,

b&

+1

 

[J.R.]

I have 4 canon dslr bodies and a set of L lenses to go with them. The NEX system has Zeiss lenses just for their system which are excellent in IQ. The 16MP sensor in the nex 6 is excellent, AND you get AF all the time.

Canon is way behind Nikon and Sony as far as IQ and innovative products.

Are you sure you got that right ... You mean you have 4 DSLR canon bodies and L lenses and they have poor IQ as compared to Nikons and Sony?

Troll post if ever I saw one!

Damn! My bad on commenting on a troll post and starting the dreaded DR discussion again :-[

 

[RLPhoto]

I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.

You have yet to demonstrate to us where the DR of a canon camera has limited you in real world shooting.

 

[Albi86]

I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.

You have yet to demonstrate to us where the DR of a canon camera has limited you in real world shooting.

Excuse me, the photos attached to that article are from real-world scenarios or from a unicorn photo shoot in Narnia?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.

You have yet to demonstrate to us where the DR of a canon camera has limited you in real world shooting.

Excuse me, the photos attached to that article are from real-world scenarios or from a unicorn photo shoot in Narnia?

No not as far fetched as a "unicorn photo shoot in Narnia", however, (in the fredmiranda weblink provided), he says: "I interpolated the 22MP file to 36MP. I believe this is a fair comparison because both files will be printed at the same paper size" ... how the hell can a interpolated file be a "fair comparison" to the native file from the full resolution of a camera ... I guess one is entitled to "think it is fair" if one is smoking some exotic stuff grown in Narnia from the unicorn's a55 ;D

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

What the F is the difference supposed to be between this and the t5i? Am i missing something?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Am i missing something?

Yes!

 

[Sporgon]

I see there's been a real punch up going on an I've missed nearly all of it ! What was a fight over DR ( or DH as Neuro would say ) going on under '100D specs appear ' ?

I'm still totally baffled by the war of words that is fought over this. The Canon sensor is more than capable of handling all but an extreme EV range. As some one pointed out on another thread, if the EV range is going to exceed 11 stops it tends to be way over 11 ( or 14 ) stops.

There are two issues here: one is the ability of the sensor to record high and low light in one exposure, the other is the data's ability to be recovered in PP.

The first picture I've attached is shot by my daughter with Canon's budget SLR - the 1100D. It's shot in jpeg, the sun is strong, the rider has snowy white breeches on - ( these riding girls just love their snowy white breeches and my little dog can put a muddy paw print pattern all over them before the dismounted girl can finish the sentence "Aaarrgggg...." but I digress). So we have strong sun, white breeches and black boots, yet the cheapest of Canon SLR's has nicely sat the highlight and lowlight at either end of the response curve.

Now what's wrong with that ?

On to shadow recovery. At Building Panoramics we have never /i] had a problem with this. The picture of Roche Abbey had a huge EV range as the sun was reflecting straight back off the white magnesium limestone. I attach a section of one of the RAW files, and as you can see the shadows are pretty black. Yet we pulled this back no problem in post - there is no noise, no banding - no issues. You can check this for yourselves if anyone so wishes on our website where Roche is on the super zoom.

I guess the Nikon / Sony sensors allow easier shadow recovery for people don't know how to post process, or don't have the powerful programs, but would you trade this for the high ISO capability ?

The whole Canon package - body, sensor, lenses - is very good. It's no wonder there are some green trolls about.

And lets refer to it as DH from now on ;D

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I attach a section of one of the RAW files, and as you can see the shadows are pretty black. Yet we pulled this back no problem in post - there is no noise, no banding - no issues.

The reason, of course, that you didn't have any trouble with the shadows is that -- wait for it! -- you let the shadows be shadows. Radical concept, I know, especially for the measurebators.

Those who constantly bitch about noisy shadows are generally trying to turn shadows into midtones -- and, sometimes, even brighter than midtones. Invariably, they're at least placing the lighter parts of the shadow detail at or above Zone V, and often stretching the hell out of the contrast to boot.

In other words, they're trying to use the camera's dynamic range as a fill flash, and often as a high-intensity selective spotlight to boot.

Thing is, even if the camera could contort the image like that, it still won't look right...the directionality of the shadows, the proportions, everything will look weird.

Now, if you like that bizarre distortion of reality, sure, great, go for it, get your grove on, and Canon's not for you.

But anybody who generally likes to preserve at least the general impression of a continuous tone curve throughout the image that's consistent with that in the original will either let the shadows be shadows or will fix the light (or use a graduated neutral density filter or blend multiple exposures) -- and, any way you look at it, there isn't a camera on the market today that doesn't have more than ample dynamic range for us.

Besides. Our cameras already have way more dynamic range than our printers and even our displays, so what's the bother?

Cheers,

b&

 

[Malte_P]

I attach a section of one of the RAW files, and as you can see the shadows are pretty black. Yet we pulled this back no problem in post - there is no noise, no banding - no issues.

The reason, of course, that you didn't have any trouble with the shadows is that -- wait for it! -- you let the shadows be shadows. Radical concept, I know, especially for the measurebators.

Those who constantly bitch about noisy shadows are generally trying to turn shadows into midtones -- and, sometimes, even brighter than midtones. Invariably, they're at least placing the lighter parts of the shadow detail at or above Zone V, and often stretching the hell out of the contrast to boot.

In other words, they're trying to use the camera's dynamic range as a fill flash, and often as a high-intensity selective spotlight to boot.

Thing is, even if the camera could contort the image like that, it still won't look right...the directionality of the shadows, the proportions, everything will look weird.

Now, if you like that bizarre distortion of reality, sure, great, go for it, get your grove on, and Canon's not for you.

But anybody who generally likes to preserve at least the general impression of a continuous tone curve throughout the image that's consistent with that in the original will either let the shadows be shadows or will fix the light (or use a graduated neutral density filter or blend multiple exposures) -- and, any way you look at it, there isn't a camera on the market today that doesn't have more than ample dynamic range for us.

Besides. Our cameras already have way more dynamic range than our printers and even our displays, so what's the bother?

Cheers,

b&

so you say nikons higher DR turns all their images into strange looking HDR images....??

and we could be happy with a way lower DR.. if we accept just more shadows...is that what you say?

8)

 

[krjc]

I bought a T4i, for my girlfriend and she loves it but says it is too big. So yes there is a market, I think it will be a success and I don't like mirrorless cameras so I find this is a fantastic move by Canon. Gee people complaining about too much choice, really don't get it.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I bought a T4i, for my girlfriend and she loves it but says it is too big. So yes there is a market, I think it will be a success and I don't like mirrorless cameras so I find this is a fantastic move by Canon. Gee people complaining about too much choice, really don't get it.

I thought that's what the EOS-M was for. Or Nikon 1.

 

[krjc]

I bought a T4i, for my girlfriend and she loves it but says it is too big. So yes there is a market, I think it will be a success and I don't like mirrorless cameras so I find this is a fantastic move by Canon. Gee people complaining about too much choice, really don't get it.

I thought that's what the EOS-M was for. Or Nikon 1.

We both prefer DSLR with optical viewfinder format & EF-S mount. AF faster on T4i which was important also. Mirrorless is not for every one.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

so you say nikons higher DR turns all their images into strange looking HDR images....??

and we could be happy with a way lower DR.. if we accept just more shadows...is that what you say?

8)

<whoosh />

Let's try a car analogy.

Imagine we've got a group of people who hang out discussing a brand of cars well known for making reliable everyday commuters / family cars, and what they most care about is that the cars just work, and they don't get in their way. The types of features that get them excited are a better cruise control, better visibility, a simpler console, a smoother ride, that sort of thing.

Now imagine that there's a rival hotrod brand whose devotees care about nothing but speed.

Further imagine that all the cars in the "boring" brand have a top speed of 100 mph and handle beautifully at 85, but the hotrod brand's cars can do 120 mph, but they're squirrely as all get-out at 65 mph and the cupholders are all too shallow and so drinks spill really easily. Plus they don't have an hatchback model and none of them have removable or even fold-down seats.

Might you be able to understand why those discussing the "boring" brand really don't give a damn about that extra 20 mph at the top end of the speed range? When, ever, in the real world, outside of a racetrack or something else that's going to get you in real trouble, would it even occur to any sane person to drive that fast? And wouldn't any sane person prefer something that's nice and steady at normal freeway speeds anyway?

Look. You clearly care about that extra 20 mph. Whoopee, fantastic, great for you. So go get that hotrod. And enjoy it. But stop trying to convince the rest of us that we need it, when, really, truly, honestly, we couldn't care less. We'll never notice it missing, and we will and do notice the lack of all sorts of other things that you clearly don't give a damn about (but that we really and truly honestly do).

Cheers,

b&