Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?

[Keith_Reeder]

Groan...

You're making my point for me! The two brands leap-frog each other. Always have, and always will.

I started with Nikon myself, but the D200 was a POS that drove me to Cnaon, where I've been ever since.

The big difference - and I really want you and the rest of the trolls to take this to heart (because yes, you're a troll, and it sits just fine with me to characterise you as one, and I love the way that trolls like you so often try to play the "badly done-to, misunderstood victim" card) - we're not crawling all over Nikon Rumors bitching and whining about all the things which Canon (actually or supposedly) does better than Nikon, purely for the sake of disrupting that forum: which is exactly what some of the contributors to this thread, and to the wider forum, are doing.

(They can't honestly be so obtuse as to think that b*tching on here will influence Canon, can they? And given this, what purpose can it possibly be serving except disruption? Trolling?)

And back to my point about the D200: I wasn't happy about it (irony of ironies, it was its poxy sensor I hated), I jumped ship.

There's a pretty strong clue there about what the DR whiners and trolls can do about the "terrible" sensors in their Canons...

 

[Maiaibing]

Everything I have read from people who have tested says the opposite - what do you build this claim on?

That's because you're a Canon-basher...
Let's see all of these examples you cite.

Having bought Canon equipment for ten of thousands of USD and having posted many positive Canon reviews I am not sure I qualify as a Canon-basher. But let me use the opportunity to quote myself on the fact that my camera make is not my religion.

"...at a Canon gear forum such as this, some people will dislike the video because saying Canon is not the best is sacrilege and eagerly find whatever reasons to ditch it as irrelevant. I guess that's human nature. However:
As an occasional reviewer I sympathize with those who spend hours and hours trying to help people take better informed gear decisions - mostly for free. As a heavy gear buyer I value all the info that I can get. And as a Canon owner I believe having good tests that demonstrate that Canon should catch up is actually beneficial to all of us visiting here." Nuf' said.

Now since you - interestingly - refuse to provide any evidence at all for your claims that the 5DIII AF is superior (always wonder how often people on-line just babble in stead of providing proof) I can offer the following:
1.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7Kjeq2aH4 with links to samples and additional info /main points. more accurate and flexible
2.) http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/07/02/nikon-d810-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-comparison-full-frame-dslrs/3/ /main point advantage for wildlife photography (just one of many such remarks around)
3.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d810.htm#comp /main point much better autofocus for portraits (also lots of these around)

Eagerly waiting your links.
__

EDIT: Left this one out because it was in French, but google translate does enough of a good job to read it; main point Nikon 810 AF vastly better than 5DIII AF
4.) http://www.shots.fr/2014/07/03/comparatif-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d810-lheure-des-comptes/

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Now since you - interestingly - refuse to provide any evidence at all for your claims that the 5DIII AF is superior

I didn't make the claim. Take it up with Neuro.

Oh, and that you've spent a hill of money on Canon gives your opinions no innate credibility. A phrase I first came across during my mountain biking days may well appiy:

All the gear and no idea..?

 

[jakeymate]

Groan...

You're making my point for me! The two brands leap-frog each other. Always have, and always will.

I started with Nikon myself, but the D200 was a POS that drove me to Cnaon, where I've been ever since.

The big difference - and I really want you and the rest of the trolls to take this to heart (because yes, you're a troll

You started with Nikon, back when Canon were top of the tree. Early 2006 you started with Canon. I started with Canon digital in 2002 (D60) and Canon film in 1992. I've had many Canons in that time culminating in the Mk3 in 2012.

So this 'troll' has more history and experience of YOUR system than you do.

Yes, you keep saying that troll word as if it means something, while you add no facts, no information and no insight into the subject at hand, except inflammatory language and aggressive name calling.

Now THAT's a troll Keith. Play nice.

As for making your point for you, your point was this.

Nikon took years to match the 5D Mk3.

I didn't make THAT point for you as it's not true.

I stated that the Nikon D3s was a fantastic camera, equal to the 5D Mk3, in many ways, and better in some (it's still seen as the low light king of Canon/Nikon cameras), and it was 3 years before the Mk3.

The reality would be the opposite of your point. It took Canon 3 years to NOT MATCH the D3s with the Mk3.

The D3s was the first Nikon that caught my eye as it was spectacular, but I stayed with Canon through the Mk2 and then the Mk3,before the D800 won me over.

My point and your point were different so how could I possibly make your point for you?

If you want calm logical and friendly discussion on a subject, it is available, but not the way you're going about it.

 

[Maiaibing]

Perhaps you believe everything on the Internet is authoritative? Take Tony Northrup's YouTube "review"…in his "sports" test, which consisted of a subject walking sedately toward him, he reported a keeper percentage in the low 60s from the 5DIII. What a joke, but I suspect you believed every word.

No. I carefully compare all the info I can get and try to draw an informed decision based on the broadest possible basis. You can see a - short - list of comparison reviews I have posted above on the AF question. I have in fact not seen a single comparison test out there that makes the claim that the 5DIII AF is better than the 810 AF. Please post as I would like to read them too if they in fact exist.

I take note of your experience. But it would be more believable if you did not feel compelled to ridicule those who have carefully documented their results and presented them for us all to evaluate. Having made many reviews myself I know how painstakingly long time it takes and how much effort goes into trying to make them as error-free as possible.

The only reason you can insult Tony Northrup is because his test was easy to follow and absolutely transparent - far above the level of what most others offer. Your counter claim here is just that - an unsubstantiated claim to be taken at face value. Hardly the best basis for such harsh words.

 

[Maiaibing]

I didn't make the claim. Take it up with Neuro.

My mistake...

 

[jrista]

How much is Canon paying you to suffer and defend the brand? If the threads bug you, don't read them. Better yet, go out and take some shots. As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a substantially better sensor. It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices. Seriously, go out and take shots.

How about you don't wade in, missing the point by a country mile with worn-out, rote, flamebait clichés?

The folk here who "defend" (which, incidentally, is an immature, immotive characterisation of what's really going on here) Canon, do so:

Because they don't appreciate lies, half-truths and irrelevances presented as "facts" - much less as show-stopping, catastrophic failures by Canon.

Because they know, from their own use of Canon equipment, that it can achieve anything they need a camera to do - which is, images (not pixels) of the most sublime image quality anyone might possibly wish for.

Because the whining about Canon's "sub-standard" sensors says more about the whiners (and their own failings) than it does about the sensors.

Simply put, they "defend" because that's the proper reaction to the bullsh*t. Other people who (God help them) might choose to visit Canonrumors to get some useful information about the capabilities of Canon cameras deserve a balanced view that pushes back against the interminable DR crap.

And it'll continue to happen for as long as the DR whiners continue to push their DR agenda, and as long as that agenda continues to mean sweet FA for the vast majoiity of photographers out there in the Real World.

The notion that it's all pointless is a fallacy, though. The 5D III was indeed a much better general purpose camera than the D800. To deny that the D810 closes the gap significantly, however, is just as much a lie or half-truth as anything your claiming the other camp is doing.

The D810 HAS significantly closed the gap on the 5D III. It DOES have a good AF unit, and it DOES have a higher frame rate (it's only 1fps slower than the 5D III now). It's the D4 AF system, which has a much tighter point spread clustered in the center of the frame. The 5D III inherited the 1D X AF system, which has the largest AF point spread of any DSLR AF system to date, which gives it a strong edge for tracking subjects across the majority of the frame. The 5D III has full expansion mode f/8 AF, allowing up to five AF points to be used around the center. The D810 has that same capability now, though. The D810 has the ability to shoot 7fps in crop mode...and with pixels under the 5µm limit, only 0.6µm larger than the 7D pixels, it offers the option of enhanced reach and action shooting all in a single camera body...that's something the 5D III does NOT have any counterpart for.

It's one thing to be sick and tired of DRivel. However, the D810 brings a hell of a lot more to the table than just more DR than the 5D III. To deny that is to stick your head in the sand and sing a little song about how nothing has changed. The 5D III is an excellent camera, it's phenomenal for high ISO work, where it's still superior to the D810, it handles like a dream, and it's compatible with the best telephoto lenses available for DSLRs. The D810, however, even if you completely ignore it's sensor IQ advantage, has closed the gap between the two cameras CONSIDERABLY.

And that happened in LESS than two and a half years since the original release of the 5D III...not more than three and a half years, as you mistakenly state in a later post.

There is a very strong defense of Canon here on CR. Ironically, that defense is so consistent and ignorant of the real competition that Canon is facing, not just on the sensor IQ front but on every aspect of their DSLRs, that you guys are just giving Canon more reason NOT to improve their products by constantly saying things like you have in your post above. You want the people coming here to CR to get a balanced view of the state of Canon's DSLR market? Stop sticking your heads in the sand, stop ignoring the fact that Canon clearly seems hell-bent on pushing video features in their DSLRs at the expense of many other capabilities, and acknowledge that Canon technology, not just the sensor but other technologies as well, is or has fallen behind the competition. There ARE better options out there for some types of photography, and the number of options is increasing...for more reasons than simply getting more DR.

 

[Jan van Holten]

D800 -> D810

The 5dm3 is looking really old.

So you are a bit clumsy and damage the thing???

 

[PicaPica]

there is no question that today sonys sensor technology is better than canons.
only fanatic canon fanboys will disagree.

even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn´t matter. it´s just childish behavior.

the important point is that the sensor is only part of the equation.

even with the better sensors nikon does not make the overall better cameras today.

if(!) samsung will have the best APS-C sensor in it´s upcoming NX1 camera (as rumored) i bet it will not be the best APS-C camera overall.

 

[Loswr]

The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect.

That's the second time you've made that ridiculous claim. Let's start with some really, really simple questions.

• How is the D810's 5 frames per second better than the 5DIII's 6 frames per second?

Oh, and I hope your answer to that first point won't foolishly invoke the higher frame rate in DX mode, unless you're prepared to also explain how using only 43% of the sensor area is better than using the whole thing.

Why is throwing away 43% of the sensor area a problem when people can and do crop down that much or more?

There's no problem with cropping. Throw away 99% of your image area, if it makes you happy. But we're not discussing cropping an image, we're discussing frame rates.

It is foolish is to suggest that the D810's higher frame rate in DX mode somehow makes the D810 superior to the 5DIII in terms of frame rate, since that higher frame rate comes at the cost of throwing away ~60% of the incoming light.

Similarly, the fps for the 1D X is appropriately stated as 12 fps. Technically, it can shoot 14 fps, but only writing JPGs with the mirror locked up. So it's reasonable to say the 1D X shoots at a 9% higher frame rate (12 vs. 11) than the D4s, but it's not reasonable to state the 1D X shoots 27% (14 vs. 11), even though with certain constraints it can (and arguably those constraints are less impactful than cropping by ~60%).

The 5DIII has a 20% higher frame rate than the D810...I'd still like to hear how the D810 slower frame rate is part of 'better in every respect'.

 

[Memnon]

Hi,

First post, be gentle

Since nine pages of words don't seem to have settled this issue, why not use the cameras for their purpose?

How about someone with both a 5D3 and a D810 (and no axe to grind) post 10 images from each camera? Resize the images so say 1920x1080, strip them of EXIF data and lets see if anyone will be able to tell the difference?

I bet not a single person (with the exception of the poster) will be able to 100% identify which camera took which image.

Regards,

Memnon

 

[dtaylor]

...
As for DR/exposure latitude, for all the debate on this forum there has been exactly ONE test sample shot under identical conditions, the one from Fred Miranda.

Once a test is done, it doesn't need to be repeated.

Apparently it does because the test does not support the whining about DR that appears on this forum. Not even close.

Everyone with a 5D2 or 5D3 knows how bad the noise and shadows are.

So bad you might notice in a 24" print. If the Nikon print is sitting next to it. And you have a magnifying glass ;D

 

[PicaPica]

Hi,

First post, be gentle

Since nine pages of words don't seem to have settled this issue, why not use the cameras for their purpose?

How about someone with both a 5D3 and a D810 (and no axe to grind) post 10 images from each camera? Resize the images so say 1920x1080, strip them of EXIF data and lets see if anyone will be able to tell the difference?

I bet not a single person (with the exception of the poster) will be able to 100% identify which camera took which image.

Regards,

Memnon

i like the idea but i would like to see a resize to A4 at 360PPI (4209x2976 pixels).

the majority of people i know never print bigger.

i have a epson R2880 myself but 90% of my prints are A4 or smaller.
i just have no unlimited space to hang all the A3 prints.

that said... one thing where per pixel image quality matters is MICROSTOCK photography.

im only 17 but i do microstock photography with an account made on my fathers name.
i had way more images refused for noise issues with my 550D then i have with my 6D.

 

[mb66energy]

Hi,

First post, be gentle

Since nine pages of words don't seem to have settled this issue, why not use the cameras for their purpose?

How about someone with both a 5D3 and a D810 (and no axe to grind) post 10 images from each camera? Resize the images so say 1920x1080, strip them of EXIF data and lets see if anyone will be able to tell the difference?

I bet not a single person (with the exception of the poster) will be able to 100% identify which camera took which image.

Regards,

Memnon

It's like a discussion about music without listening to the music. Or better:
A discussion about the sound of instruments without playing them.

 

[Memnon]

Hi,

First post, be gentle

Since nine pages of words don't seem to have settled this issue, why not use the cameras for their purpose?

How about someone with both a 5D3 and a D810 (and no axe to grind) post 10 images from each camera? Resize the images so say 1920x1080, strip them of EXIF data and lets see if anyone will be able to tell the difference?

I bet not a single person (with the exception of the poster) will be able to 100% identify which camera took which image.

Regards,

Memnon

It's like a discussion about music without listening to the music. Or better:
A discussion about the sound of instruments without playing them.

Excellent analogy

 

[Keith_Reeder]

even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn't matter.

Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

(Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?)

But the fact is that - for the most part - it doesn't matter. It literally, actually, definitively, demonstrably does not matter.

It doesn't matter to those of us who never get down to 100 ISO (never below 400 ISO myself); it doesn't matter to those of us who don't need to push shadows five stops (and for the record, I don't believe anyone needs to do that as a matter of routine unless they're incapable of exposing an image properly in the first place); it doesn't matter to those of us who are more interest in highlight latitude - where Canon sensors do very well, incidentally; and it doesn't matter to those hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of photographers who simply want cameras that do what needs to be done with a minimum of fuss, and who don't have any interest in the DR obsession.

it´s just childish behavior.

What's childish is the infantile insistence of some that low ISO DR is all that matters, and that because it (supposedly) matters so much to them, it's all that should matter to anyone and everyone.

This is pretty much the definition of petulant, spoiled-brat "I'll scream and scream until I make myself sick!" behaviour.

That's what we rail against.

Please have the decency accurately to characterise the nature of our position, instead of dumbing it down into something it's not.

 

[Orangutan]

I simply corrected some very inaccurate statements regarding the cameras in question.

jakey, I'll give you some advice I gave another guy who was very ardent about his ideas. Most of the people on this board are intelligent, reasonable people, who are willing to have their minds changed. This includes several on this thread whose histories I recognize. You haven't done a good job persuading them. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that your arguments and style of presentation have not been persuasive, so maybe you should try presenting in a different way.

Bear in mind that there are a lot of different kinds of "pros" on this forum, including photographers with decades of experience, working artists, engineers, academic scientists, etc.

 

[PicaPica]

even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn't matter.

Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?

i have a life that´s why i don´t waste my time searching and quoting such comments i was refering too.

But the fact is that - for the most part - it doesn't matter. It literally, actually, definitively, demonstrably does not matter.

"fact" is also.. that if canon "had" the better sensors the fanboys here would be all over it.

What's childish is the infantile insistence of some that low ISO DR is all that matter

it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that all people who want better DR saying that it´s all that matters.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The notion that it's all pointless is a fallacy, though. The 5D III was indeed a much better general purpose camera than the D800. To deny that the D810 closes the gap significantly, however, is just as much a lie or half-truth as anything your claiming the other camp is doing.

Where do you get "pointless" from? I'm saying - have always said - that for the vast majority, low DR is just not an issue, and nobody's done a damn' thing so far to disabuse me of the essential rightness of that position.

Neuro has pointed out, more times than tongue can tell, that Canon's sales figures tell this story more eloquently and definitively than anything we choose to write here.

I accept unreservedly that's it's probably not "pointless" to some - although I'll bet pounds to pennies that it is an irrelevance to many of the whiners on here that are buying into the "Canon sensors bad" meme - probably because they lack the knowledge, talent and ability to get the best out of their Canons.

I will also agree with any argument that Nikon cameras/Sony sensors make it easier for bad photographers to end up with decent results. I'll happily allow that...

And as to the D810 itself, here's my Real World take: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22422.msg430807#msg430807

 

[Keith_Reeder]

are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?

i have a life that´s why i don´t waste my time searching and quoting such comments i was refering to.

Speaking of "childish"...

The use of "we" in my post was completely correct - I'm part of the group that's challenging the DR whiners, and part of the group you called "childish".