Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?

[Orangutan]

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?)

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky. I've had trouble with both of those kinds of shots and, while there are ways to adapt to the situations, such as choosing time of day for minimal DR, his point is still valid: if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

This harkens back to discussions on auto-focus and frame rate. We can focus manually, and we can time the shot correctly the first time to get excellent results; however, good AF and high frame rate will increase the range of circumstances where the chance of success is good. I definitely want better low ISO DR to find its way into Canon's cameras, but it's not enough to make me sell my gear and buy Nikon.

Or forest scenes, it's sooo easy with sunbeams entering forests to reach high DR scenarios and filters are useless since things are so complicated, you surely can't light the scene, and often branches are constantly swaying so multi-exposure isn't always in the mix. Or say post storms like where you have areas in shadows and others with the sun blasting out rays and the mists are swirling all over, pretty amazing, but very hard to manage without a ton of DR.

Yes, but still need to be a bit careful: first, the DR advantage is only at low ISO. Second, many forest/sunbeam/post-storm scenes have significantly more DR than a D8x0 can handle, too. More DR is always better, but more of anything has a cost.

Sure you can shoot an infinite number of amazing shots with the older sensors. But all the same why fight so hard to not get the chance to be able to better shoot a ton more types of scenes that you need to skip or struggle with? Some people like shooting that kind of stuff and run across it often enough. And even for simple exposure mistakes, who hasn't had some out of the blue shoot come up and you have a one shot chance and no time to adjust settings, etc. why fight to not get a sensor that always you to deal with that? The only people that does any good are a few big Canon stock holders and the pockets of some major players at Canon.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body. As you say, there may be times you don't have a chance to adjust settings; if the subject is a moving animal then AF is more important than DR. The key is to buy the gear that most closely matches your needs and your budget.

 

[Lawliet]

Just get out and take some pictures, the kind that reliably make money, everything else the same one camera gives you:
resolution diff. limited to f/11, constant light motion blur of 1/320, flash motion blur of 1/1000s, 1fps
the other
resolution diff. limited to f/16, constant light motion blur of 1/160-1/200, flash motion blur of 1/400s, 0,5fps

With (some) the Canon crop cams having no black bars at 1/320 things get a little paradox in terms practical utility. 8)

 

[jakeymate]

That's soooo right. Exmor is clearly a miracle sensor designed by some clever deity for His or Her own use. Especially clever of that deity to decree an 11th Commandment...

The World and the Sun which I made to lighteth it shall have No More than 14 stops of Dynamical Ranges, so that Mine Own Mighty Exmor Shall Forever and Always deal with that.

So much for sarcasm being the lowest form of wit. Doesn't stop the dripping sarcasm just building layer on layer does it?

There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

But that would be churlish, and who'd want that?

 

[jakeymate]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body.

It's not but it is useful for many.

The other factor that gets forgotten is that DR is helped by a far cleaner read from the sensor and that increases the quality of shadows at any ISO.

On my D800/810, I don't just lift 64ISO images to use shadow detail, I do it at 1600 as well and it's still clean and free from banding and read noise patterns.

Yes, it's not the be all and end all, but I can guarantee when Canon match the Exmors, the tone in here will change as people start to see the benefits across the ISO range, not just at low ISO.

There is an assumption I shoot at ISO 100 all the time, but that's rubbish.

I shoot at 1600 regularly and with the D800/810, when I shoot window backlit portraits, I can expose for the highlights, and let the face fall in exposure and lift it later with no read noise.

That's useful to me.

 

[privatebydesign]

That's soooo right. Exmor is clearly a miracle sensor designed by some clever deity for His or Her own use. Especially clever of that deity to decree an 11th Commandment...

The World and the Sun which I made to lighteth it shall have No More than 14 stops of Dynamical Ranges, so that Mine Own Mighty Exmor Shall Forever and Always deal with that.

So much for sarcasm being the lowest form of wit. Doesn't stop the dripping sarcasm just building layer on layer does it?

There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

But that would be churlish, and who'd want that?

Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here?

Just tell us your opinion of the gear, and better yet back it up with examples or illustrations, we like pictures, and leave the counter antagonism in Aus. Your opinions of another poster are what got you in trouble last time, nobody cares about your opinions of other posters, we do care about well reasoned and illustrated points about gear.

 

[Orangutan]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body.

There is an assumption I shoot at ISO 100 all the time, but that's rubbish.

I shoot at 1600 regularly and with the D800/810, when I shoot window backlit portraits, I can expose for the highlights, and let the face fall in exposure and lift it later with no read noise.

Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up. I've read (can't recall where) that lifting shadows becomes roughly equal between D8x0 and 5D3 somewhere between ISO800 and ISO1600.

Again, this is not my personal experience, and I can't cite you a source. If you have access to both cameras maybe you could post side-by-side samples at ISO1600.

 

[dtaylor]

How would you feel if Canon announced three new FF cams at Photokina, and announced that they were stopping CMOS development and using those funds for other camera technologies?

You're assuming this would save them money. In fact it would probably cost them. Sony wants a profit on the sensors they sell.

 

[dtaylor]

blah blah blah

and yeah great just you GO Keith! Keep up the good fight to help insure Canon lens lovers get stuck with inferior sensors for low ISO, you go!!!!

Do you have a controlled, side by side test that illustrates this inferiority in a real world scene viewed at normal sizes (i.e. 24" wide)?

Let us know when you're ready to post it.

 

[3kramd5]

Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up.

Read noise is not ISO dependent, but it's not the only source of noise.

 

[9VIII]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body.

There is an assumption I shoot at ISO 100 all the time, but that's rubbish.

I shoot at 1600 regularly and with the D800/810, when I shoot window backlit portraits, I can expose for the highlights, and let the face fall in exposure and lift it later with no read noise.

Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up. I've read (can't recall where) that lifting shadows becomes roughly equal between D8x0 and 5D3 somewhere between ISO800 and ISO1600.

Again, this is not my personal experience, and I can't cite you a source. If you have access to both cameras maybe you could post side-by-side samples at ISO1600.

http://www.sensorgen.info/

Maybe this is what you're referring to?
The 6D has better dynamic range than the D810 at ISO 800, and at ISO 400 it's only 0.5 stops worse.
Dynamic range is in part determined by read noise.

I don't know about the commonly complained of banding noise, but this is the closest thing I could think of.

 

[dtaylor]

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.

No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate. Since we do not have a 5D3 shot of the room nor a D800 shot of the stream we have no idea what the difference would actually be.

You, me, neuro, jrista, Keith...everyone here...none of us can accurately evaluate the luminance range of a scene by sight alone, nor the dynamic range of a RAW file, and compute in our brains how it might have looked on another camera. Not even close.

Absent that you get confirmation bias. Every Canon shot with a white sky or black shadow is due to 'Canon's crummy sensor.' Every Nikon shot with a good range from shadow to highlight is 'thanks to those amazing Exmor sensors.' Even if you could have swapped cameras and gotten the same results they are interpreted that way. Heck, in another thread we had jrista cruising 500px thinking obvious HDR images were single frame Exmor shots. Outside of this debate and the psychological biases it has introduced...one's frame of mind if you will...he would have never assumed some of those shots were anything but multiple frame HDRs.

We have plenty of words but no real examples save Fred Miranda's, and the difference there is simply not worth all these words.

I would love to put this to rest once and for all, but I either have to borrow a friend's D800 (which he's always using professionally) or buy a Sony A7 (which I'm planning but haven't done yet). But a half dozen threads on the same topic is pointless absent a series of "all other things equal" test shots. Real world test shots. Not black paper in a coal mine "I pushed this >5 stops and turned off all NR on the Canon and look at how much better Nikon is at 300%" nonsense.

Despite my clashes with jrista I would trust him to do this. His sunflower scene would have been a great test if he had only had a D800 to test. I suspect the noise would have been much better on the darkest frame, but the shadows would have been mud that deep. I could be wrong.

if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene. (Side note: based on what experience I do have processing/printing D800 RAW files I would guess there would be some benefit. I'm not convinced it would be visual, but simply less work in post. I can imagine in some cases that it would be visual, but I don't think it would ever be massive, i.e. you are still going to need and use GND filters and HDR.)

 

[dtaylor]

Indeed. The 7D was a top seller for years, leading to a long upgrade cycle. The 100-400L remains popular, and despite unfortunately frequent false rumors, it's likely that Canon feels little pressure to replace it.

It's still competitive. At the short end Nikon's 80-400 AF-S is sharper, but at the long end the Canon is sharper. The worst thing about the Canon is the push/pull zoom.

In a sense Nikon "just caught up" to the Canon version in 2013. Are Nikon lenses as a whole two generations behind Canon?

 

[dtaylor]

There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

I have never, on any forum, seen Canon users push Canon's advantages this hard. Ever.

Maybe Canon users are just happier people ;D

 

[Orangutan]

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.

No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate.

<snip>

jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene.

I'll grant that it hasn't met scientific standards, and I'd like to see the side-by-side you describe. My opinion that jrista's examples were reasonable was based on two criteria: my personal experience with my 60D (I'm aware it's not Canon's best) and jrista's history of being careful about his assertions. I.e., he's earned the benefit of my initial trust (as if he cares), though I would be pleased to see scientifically valid tests to support the assertion.

 

[jakeymate]

Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here?

Just tell us your opinion of the gear, and better yet back it up with examples or illustrations, we like pictures, and leave the counter antagonism in Aus. Your opinions of another poster are what got you in trouble last time, nobody cares about your opinions of other posters, we do care about well reasoned and illustrated points about gear.

Pointing out that constant sarcasm is tiresome is an issue, but the ridiculous sarcasm itself isn't?

Ok.

 

[jakeymate]

There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

I have never, on any forum, seen Canon users push Canon's advantages this hard. Ever.

Maybe Canon users are just happier people ;D

I've seen these pushed at me numerous times on CR, and at others as a Canon defence, so you can't have seen the many I've seen.

Neuro has pushed both extensively for example.

 

[Orangutan]

Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here?

Just tell us your opinion of the gear, and better yet back it up with examples or illustrations, we like pictures, and leave the counter antagonism in Aus. Your opinions of another poster are what got you in trouble last time, nobody cares about your opinions of other posters, we do care about well reasoned and illustrated points about gear.

Pointing out that constant sarcasm is tiresome is an issue, but the ridiculous sarcasm itself isn't?

Ok.

Neuro is a contradiction. I don't know how long you you've been lurking at CR before you started posting, but you can see quite a bit of dynamic range from him. I've seen him be extremely generous with his time and experience, patiently explaining concepts and gear to newbs and Luddites. And I've seen him misunderstand a post and set off a snark bomb. He's probably a nice guy in-person.

 

[jakeymate]

Neuro is a contradiction. I don't know how long you you've been lurking at CR before you started posting, but you can see quite a bit of dynamic range from him. I've seen him be extremely generous with his time and experience, patiently explaining concepts and gear to newbs and Luddites. And I've seen him misunderstand a post and set off a snark bomb. He's probably a nice guy in-person.

I'd lurked for years, but first noticed him maybe 3 years or so ago.

When I first joined, I suggested, politely I hope, that he plays to his strengths as you've listed here, and not his weaknesses.

I guess it's a feature of forums that half of everything posted is inaccurate, sarcastic and biased, but as I find this one of the most useful photography forums, I hoped that could be reduced to less.

When Neuro takes the chip off his shoulder, he is a fantastic contributor, maybe 2nd to none actually.

 

[dtaylor]

I've seen these pushed at me numerous times on CR, and at others as a Canon defence, so you can't have seen the many I've seen.

Neuro has pushed both extensively for example.

Allow me to rephrase...I have never seen a half dozen threads about Canon T/S lenses on a Nikon site at one time.

 

[David Hull]

I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.

The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?"
I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since.
He then said that he was a Nikon shooter and was thinking of switching to Canon. I assumed he must be a sports photographer because from what I have read on this forum it seems that that is where Canons strengths are. But when I asked, he said that he was in fact a professional wedding photographer.
I mentioned the glowing reviews of the new 810 with the shadow detail and skin colors etc. and asked him of his reason for considering the jump to Canon.
His reply... "Canon shooters just seem happier".

Wow! I thought it was my drinking that was making me happy. Now I can finally stop and spend that money for lenses.