Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?

[jrista]

The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.

Have you tried DualISO yet?

No. As I've said, last time you or whoever it was asked that...I'm not sure I want to put ML on a brand new camera yet. Also, from what I understand about Dual ISO, it costs you vertical resolution because of the way it works...and I bought the 5D III in part because of it's higher resolution.

 

[Skulker]

Ultimately, people vote with their wallets. Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.

True, and exactly the reason why I shoot canon, even though I really wouldn't mind having a bit more DR sometimes

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.

But as I've also stated, there's more to a sensor than just low ISO DR, and there's more to a camera than just the sensor, and there's much more to a photographic system than just the camera.

Some people don't see it that way, which is fine for them. Barbecues, awnings, diet coke boxes, it's just more banging away on the same monotone DRum.

If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.

 

[jonina561]

How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?

As many as it takes for certain people to convince us that their specific needs/desires represent a large, commercially important segment of the market, and that Canon should cater to their needs.

So far, jrista has made the only reasonable arguments in favor of the D8xx cameras, and even he admits that only some of his photography would clearly benefit from it (high DR landscape).

Just coming from Canon to Nikon, I can verify a few things,, Canon better form factor for smaller hands, Nikon is better for larger hands, Both have great AF systems. Nikon reverses all the dials and displays. That doesnt make sense but can be changed with custom functions. The D810 is great for landscapes, especially in combination with the 14-24. The 2 second timer is terrible on the Nikon. I love the ability to close the viewfinder instead of using that stupid little rubber piece that gets lost. The Nikon is more forgiving with dynamic range. The nikon is a little bigger and heavier. I dont like the custom bank system on the Nikon..its easier to customize shooting modes in the MK III. With all the negatives for the Nikon, I still know it will give me better images when printing larger. Which I have a need for!

 

[Loswr]

If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.

Exactly. It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images.

I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.

 

[Don Haines]

If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.

Exactly. It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images.

I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.

I suspect that much of this debate/argument is saying the same thing from different directions and different words.

I think we all can agree on 3 basic things:

1) You can take great pictures on any camera
2) Whatever make/model the camera is, and however great it us, we wish it was even better
3) No camera is the best at absolutely everyting

 

[jakeymate]

Thanks for the info, I'll keep that in mind next time I submit a print of the "red channel" for a galleries show. I suspect galleries will start hanging "red channel" shots right after they begin accepting DxO curve prints.

Seriously, all of your Guitar shots look pretty nice and all seem to be acceptable -- I understand the nit picking and the relentless drive toward perfection but you have to admit that thousands of commercial photographers shoot this sort of thing day-in and day-out and somehow make nice images. This whole discussion seems a bit silly IMO.

I just posted the RED channel David. It's in all the channels. I posted the RGB image too, so if you have the requisite skill, you can open that in PS and look at the channels for yourself.

And if you're printing black and white prints for galleries of artistic shots of people you're going to be pushing that red channel to the max, given the colour make up of skin is primarily red and yellow when you're making black and white prints.

 

[jakeymate]

The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)

When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

I give up trying to apply logic in the face of such statements.

The DR of the SCENE is minimal, a point and shoot would see it all, given the there is no black OR white in the whole photo.

It's NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.

And I'm note sure if you're confused but the Red channel I posted ISN'T pushed. It's the regular exposure, and at 36% it starts falling apart.

That's not good. As I've said before many times, if you're ok with that, go for it.

 

[jakeymate]

Exactly. It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images.

I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.

It's funny how you never commented on the channels turning to mush at 36%. Not 5%, or 15% but at 36%, 2/3rds into the tonal range.

That's a 36% advantage the Exmor has, and yet you keep banging on about 2 stops being no big deal.

Forget the stops, the lower 36% of a Canon sensor is read noise. You don't see read noise in the Exmor even as it goes black.

And you keep banging about low ISO.

The Exmors of different flavours beat the hi ISO of the Canons, the low ISO IQ, they have better IQ across the range, due to that read noise advantage, the Exmor have higher resolution, and they have...

I'd love to see how much you'd love that 1DX of yours if it had an Exmor in it.

When Canon do finally get there and match them (and I hope they will, because I know the dissenting voices are actually very few, but they are very vocal, defensive and sarcastic), Canon users are going to be very happy.

As I have many Canon using friends, I want them to be happy.

I've said it before, but if Canon R&D saw this forum, they'd conclude that their work is done and go retire.

Great message to send

A lot of Canon users are annoyed and disappointed with the lack of progress. I know, because I know some of the top photographers in Australia.

Those 'disappointed' conversations are getting more and more. I know one who is looking at the Pentax 645D becasue of it's DR and he's a famous architectural photographer who's fed up with the lack of IQ progress in his Canons.

A wedding videography friend left Canon only last week for the GH4.

He has some kit to sell if you are looking for any. PM me for details.

How many country category award winners do you know exactly Neuro?

It will be interesting to see you'll adding read noise into your images and increasing the contrast to get rid of that tonal advantage when Canon finally have it.

Because if you didn't, your year after year of of saying only a small percentage of people need an Exmor is going to sound a little hollow when you all have it, and love it.

If I'm in the small percentage that want one to do the high quality work I do for my clients, and I'm more discerning than you, then I guess I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[privatebydesign]

The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)

When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

I give up trying to apply logic in the face of such statements.

The DR of the SCENE is minimal, a point and shoot would see it all, given the there is no black OR white in the whole photo.

It'S NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.

And I'm note sure if you're confused but the Red channel I posted ISN'T pushed. It's the regular exposure, and at 36% it starts falling apart.

That's not good. As I've said before many times, if you're ok with that, go for it.

But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting.

Look, ETTR is not a new thing, we have had to expose to our recording mediums vagaries since photography was invented, look at the meticulous care Ansel Adams went to to accomplish the amazing DR ranges he did with less capabilities than we have now, from initial exposure to development of the film, to printing and development of that print, all in his mind even before he set up his tripod.

You do have a valid point that the Exmor is capable of superior shadow lifting, everybody here agrees with that, but you are being silly if you honestly believe that Canon sensors are as bad as you are saying.

No system currently available is close to perfect, they all have positive points and negative points, every single one of them. I shoot a lot of live view with the 17TS-E with massive DR (I demonstrated that before but certainly didn't throw it down your throat or go to a Nikon forum to raise hell there) For my personal professional stills work Canon offer me the best solution, the Exmor cannot do what I need in one shot, Nikon Live View is a joke and they don't have a 17TS-E. Now my specific photography needs might be unusual, but if I was shooting the images you have shown with a Canon I know with optimal technique I could get superb results, your reply to that has been "why should I have to?", because we are photographers, if everybody could get our results you wouldn't have your $250,000 a year studio.

 

[Orangutan]

It'S NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.

And I'm note sure if you're confused but the Red channel I posted ISN'T pushed. It's the regular exposure, and at 36% it starts falling apart.

That's not good. As I've said before many times, if you're ok with that, go for it.

But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting.

[quote author=jakeymate]
[/quote]

Dean, do try ETTR, you will get better results with either system. After all, you've told us several times that your primary impetus to switch to Nikon was to produce better results for your paying customers. Whether you do so with gear or technique or both is immaterial -- I think it's worth you while at least to give it a try. I'll be interested to hear if you find any improvement on either sensor.

 

[Loswr]

I think we all can agree on 3 basic things:

1) You can take great pictures on any camera

I'd have thought we could agree on that, at least. Well, most of us...exceptions like people who'll say whatever to make a buck notwithstanding. For example:

Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Apparently, some of us feel Canon bodies are suitable for amateurs who want to post pictures on Facebook, the web, or print no larger than 8x10".

 

[jrista]

Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Apparently, some of us feel Canon bodies are suitable for amateurs who want to post pictures on Facebook, the web, or print no larger than 8x10".

You know, why do you have to TWIST things like that? Where the hell did I EVER say that a Canon camera was only suitable for amateurs? That is some twisted notion you are implying, and your implications are flat out wrong. If the day ever comes that I actually believe Canon cameras are only suitable for amateurs, you better believe that I WILL SAY SO. STRAIT UP. FLAT OUT. I've never been one to hide my opinions.

I'm not one to beat around the bush, obfuscate, twist the facts, or anything like that. I've been on these forums for years, and I am speaking MY honest opinion about what I see as the state of Canon equipment based on my own first-hand experiences.

I would have thought I'd get at least a little bit more respect and just a bit of the benefit of the doubt due to my history here. I'd have thought I'd earned the right for my words to be taken at face value, instead of chopped up and reassembled with a completely different meaning...I'd have thought I'd have earned the right to be listened to for what I say, and not have everyone assume I'm saying something else, or have anyone listen to someone like Neuro's twisted interpretation of my words and assume that's what I mean. I SAY what I mean, you don't have to interpret any kind of hidden meaning into it.

However, it seems that all you need to do around here to become "just another idiot drone who needs to be run out of town", just another guy out to lie to the world and twist facts and hide evidence to prove an invalid point, is claim that Canon needs to do something about their sensor IQ. Is that really the case? Is that all it takes around here for you guys to start twisting the words of an otherwise honest guy who STILL PREFERS CANON, and just wants them to solve their noise problems?

 

[jrista]

But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting.

Look, ETTR is not a new thing, we have had to expose to our recording mediums vagaries since photography was invented, look at the meticulous care Ansel Adams went to to accomplish the amazing DR ranges he did with less capabilities than we have now, from initial exposure to development of the film, to printing and development of that print, all in his mind even before he set up his tripod.

This is completely beside the point. ETTR isn't a factor here, and is just another misdirection. You could just as easily assume that the scene DID have nearly clipped whites at that exposure. In that case, the exposure is DEAD ON, and the shadow performance of the 5D III is still the same...banded, blotchy, grainy. The point of the example images is they show what happens as midtones fall off into shadow (regardless of where the white point is)...and Canon's banding starts right in the midtones! That's terrible!

 

[Don Haines]

Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Apparently, some of us feel Canon bodies are suitable for amateurs who want to post pictures on Facebook, the web, or print no larger than 8x10".

You know, why do you have to TWIST things like that? Where the hell did I EVER say that a Canon camera was only suitable for amateurs? That is some twisted notion you are implying, and your implications are flat out wrong. If the day ever comes that I actually believe Canon cameras are only suitable for amateurs, you better believe that I WILL SAY SO. STRAIT UP. FLAT OUT. I've never been one to hide my opinions.

I'm not one to beat around the bush, obfuscate, twist the facts, or anything like that. I've been on these forums for years, and I am speaking MY honest opinion about what I see as the state of Canon equipment based on my own first-hand experiences.

I would have thought I'd get at least a little bit more respect and just a bit of the benefit of the doubt due to my history here. I'd have thought I'd earned the right for my words to be taken at face value, instead of chopped up and reassembled with a completely different meaning...I'd have thought I'd have earned the right to be listened to for what I say, and not have everyone assume I'm saying something else, or have anyone listen to someone like Neuro's twisted interpretation of my words and assume that's what I mean. I SAY what I mean, you don't have to interpret any kind of hidden meaning into it.

However, it seems that all you need to do around here to become "just another idiot drone who needs to be run out of town", just another guy out to lie to the world and twist facts and hide evidence to prove an invalid point, is claim that Canon needs to do something about their sensor IQ. Is that really the case? Is that all it takes around here for you guys to start twisting the words of an otherwise honest guy who STILL PREFERS CANON, and just wants them to solve their noise problems?

Would someone explain to me what is wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of your brand and hoping that future models improve on those weaknesses? Is there a single person out there, with any camera from any manufacturer, who does not want improvements in the next model?

What is wrong with you people? Step back from the brink! Relax, go outside and don't come back till your memory card is full or your battery is drained!

 

[3kramd5]

Would someone explain to me what is wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of your brand and hoping that future models improve on those weaknesses?

Not a damned thing.

 

[Loswr]

Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Apparently, some of us feel Canon bodies are suitable for amateurs who want to post pictures on Facebook, the web, or print no larger than 8x10".

You know, why do you have to TWIST things like that? Where the hell did I EVER say that a Canon camera was only suitable for amateurs? That is some twisted notion you are implying, and your implications are flat out wrong. If the day ever comes that I actually believe Canon cameras are only suitable for amateurs, you better believe that I WILL SAY SO. STRAIT UP. FLAT OUT. I've never been one to hide my opinions.

I'm not one to beat around the bush, obfuscate, twist the facts, or anything like that. I've been on these forums for years, and I am speaking MY honest opinion about what I see as the state of Canon equipment based on my own first-hand experiences.

I would have thought I'd get at least a little bit more respect and just a bit of the benefit of the doubt due to my history here. I'd have thought I'd earned the right for my words to be taken at face value, instead of chopped up and reassembled with a completely different meaning...I'd have thought I'd have earned the right to be listened to for what I say, and not have everyone assume I'm saying something else, or have anyone listen to someone like Neuro's twisted interpretation of my words and assume that's what I mean. I SAY what I mean, you don't have to interpret any kind of hidden meaning into it.

However, it seems that all you need to do around here to become "just another idiot drone who needs to be run out of town", just another guy out to lie to the world and twist facts and hide evidence to prove an invalid point, is claim that Canon needs to do something about their sensor IQ. Is that really the case? Is that all it takes around here for you guys to start twisting the words of an otherwise honest guy who STILL PREFERS CANON, and just wants them to solve their noise problems?

Admittedly, I conflated your comments with those of Tony Northrup, and for that I apologize. I had assumed it would be clear from context, since I included quotes from both of you (even though you did not, in quoting me, which confuses the issue). I expected the deconvolution to be easy...evidently it was not easy enough. Sorry.

However, in your words:

Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Is it truly your honest opinion and do you stand by your statement that Canon images are suitable only for web display or prints no larger than 8x10"?

As I stated before, that's completely ridiculous...it's a statement that's proven false by many images, including high-contrast landscapes, taken with Canon cameras hanging as large prints in prestigious galleries around the world.

As for your reputation and history here, you're probably familiar with the saying about reputations – it takes years to build them, but only seconds to destroy them.

 

[Loswr]

Would someone explain to me what is wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of your brand and hoping that future models improve on those weaknesses?

Not a damned thing.

+1

Honestly and fairly pointing out weaknesses is something consumers should do, assuming their products matter to them.

Many people, myself included, discussed the lack of a sharp-to-the-corners UWA from Canon. Now, we have the 16-35/4L IS.

I bitched loud and long about the 5DII's AF system, which was pretty similar to that in the 20D...which was the same system used in the entry level xxxD bodies at the time. Now, we have 1-series AF in the 5DIII.

For those two examples, a sizable portion of Canon's customer base felt there was an issue to be addressed. I think the difference in this case is that there is only a very small minority complaining about Canon's lesser low ISO DR. The other difference is the way in which some members of that small minority seem to exaggerate the issue out of all reasonable proportion.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

Yep - but with all due respect to him, he's not the final arbiter of what can and cannot be achieved with a Canon file - I've been a number of examples from Jon which immediately made me think "Hmmm... That's not a very good job", because, like a lot on here, he seems wedded to a single converter. Some of the stuff on his own website has made me scratch my head about the image quality he's achieving with his bird photography, too.

The simple fact (and I use the word advisedly) is this: DPP (for example) can pull clean detail out of the shadows of Canon low ISO files in a way which - blind tested (been there, done that) - isn't that far from similarly "cranked" Sonikon sensor files.

There's more than one way to skin the low ISO DR cat...

But even the examples we're discussing are - in the great scheme of things - unlikely to represent the kind of photograph which most of us are taking on a regular basis, and it's actually good design and good business for a manufacturer not to expend time, money and effort building in capability which - realistically, whether the DR whiners like it or not - is only going to be of "niche" value.

And on DPR it was shown that DPP was smearing things out and maybe you had a bit less noise and fixed pattern banding, but you had no details or smooth changes either and DPP also didn't let one pull up as much and it is worse at saving highlights, etc. etc.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.

The reasoning doubtless eludes you because nobody's actually doing that.

More disingenuous "spinning" to push an agenda and score cheap points...

Don't paint me as a troll, I don't have any agenda to push, nor points to score. For what it's worth, I only shoot canon myself and have never really liked any nikon body I shot with.

The point I was making is that in a discussion like this one people seem to want to defend the fact that their brand is worse at some characteristic than a competing brand by dismissing the importance of that characteristic, like claiming that people who run into canon's shadow banding are bad photographers, or no one should ever need more DR.

+1

And the whole reason many of the 'DRoners' keep going on endlessly about it because the defenders of the scared honor of Canon constantly

 

[justawriter]

I'll happily leave for you.

Promise? 8)