Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?

[9VIII]

It doesn't take lot of time when you've been typing since the age of six, programming since the age of eight, and have been programming for a living for some twenty years with a WPM count over 100. I can type nearly as fast as I think.

My brother grew up on Battle.net, and gets over 100WPM one handed. Some people...

I sit around 60WPM most of the time. My only quirk is I created a custom layout just for me (after having RMI in my wrists for quite a while, QWERTY just wasn't good enough).
I took a bunch of my posts and threw them in a typing analysis program to assign letter priority, It's mostly just Dvorak with a few letters switched around (the most important change being "L" goes above "E" and "apostrophe" goes above "S", that was kind of a glaring omission in the original Dvorak since "L" consistently turned out to be a high traffic letter, and it pairs naturally with "E". Then I made two little tweaks in swapping "R" with "C" and "I" with "U").

 

[Loswr]

Jon...Neuro has a sizable lead in the CR rumors geek "posting" category, but you've got everybody including Neuro beat in the "total words written" category here on CR!! ;D

a sign of passion...

Also a sign of deep knowledge and a willingness to share it!

 

[Sporgon]

I just happened on this picture whilst browsing through 500px.

Surely this is a mistake, it must have been shot on a Canon ?

http://500px.com/photo/81720131/sunset-at-shirley's-bay-by-eyekonik-images?from=popular&only=

 

[Skulker]

...................

For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.

....................

I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS.

I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.

OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.

 

[jrista]

...................

For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.

....................

I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS.

I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.

OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.

My frustration is just with the fact that Canon, which actually seems to have done a better job with the 6D sensor only months later (which means it was already in production and ready to go), put such a noisy sensor in the 5D III. If they had made such significant improvements to the 6D, both at low ISO and high, why did the 5D III get one of their noisiest sensors to date? It's just frustrating.

And it may just be a matter of aesthetic appeal. I go through and like a lot of photography on sites like 500px, 1x, and sometimes Flickr. There is this specific trait that I only see in D800 photos in the way light falls off into shadow that I've never seen from any Canon camera. The images have the right amount of contrast...but there are no harsh or sudden transitions into shadow...things just...smoothly, softly, cleanly fade into deep shadow. I LOVE that. I've admired that for years now. I saw it in landscapes taken with the D7000 before even the D800. I put some extra money (not a lot, I got really good deals on both) into Nik and Topaz filter collections, in an attempt to try and replicate that look.

I just don't think that look is possible so long as Canon's read noise remains as it is. So, I guess I'm just resolved to focus in my bird/wildlife and astrophotography, and maybe play around with 50mm f/1.4 landscapes (I never used that lens for landscapes before, but I actually really, REALLY like it):





Crisp detail, but soft transitions, smooth falloff into shadow without obliterating detail in noise, etc. I love that. I get a some of that with the 50mm lens...so maybe I'll stick with that for a while until something changes. Maybe Canon will figure out their noise problems and release a 5D IV with more DR and more pixels. Maybe I'll find the funds for both the QSI CCD and a D800+14-24 (doubtful...and I'd rather get the QSI.) Anyway. It's an aesthetic thing...one I simply cannot seem to replicate with Canon cameras. One I've never really seen achieved with any Canon camera by anyone, with maybe a couple exceptions like Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)

 

[RLPhoto]

I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?

Eh, I dunno. I don't have infinite money. I can either buy a QSI683 CCD camera, which is about four grand. Or, I could buy a D810+14-24mm, which is about $5300. I also need to pick up a larger telescope, which is going to be about a grand. The D810+14-24 would eat into the budget for that as well.

Ditto with RLP - or just go get an A7r with adaptor (keep your canon glass).

I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.

But, I keep readfing your posts and can't help but think ---what did you expect???? the 5d3 is primarily an event/low light camera - that's what it was designed for and it does excel at that. You want to do more landscapes, great, go do it - and don't be so scared to just get what you need. What's on the market is on the market as it were. Canon has what it has, Nikon has what it has, Sony has what it has. Screaming at canon will not make the product your demanding appear. Money will talk though. If sales of A7's leap, and research finds it's owners of lots of canon glass that's buying them, that will make canon take notice. Writing books on a forum that isn't even part of Canon is just blowing steam.

I guess I disagree that the 5D III was only intended as an event/low light camera. The 5D II was the most popular landscape DSLR on the planet until the D800 came along. It's one of only two cameras in Canon's current lineup that really offers what's needed for landscapes anyway...large frame, high megapixel count...well, certainly lacking in the DR area. The 6D is the other option...but it lacks in the areas for all my other kinds of photography. Ironically, the 6D has 26.8e- RN, and does even better at high ISO than the 5D III...really confused as to why Canon did not put the 6D image sensor and readout pipeline into the 5D III...the latter did not come out much later after the 5D III...

I'd sell the 7D and the 16-35mm to fund the new system or just buy an a7r. I'm mean if the noise is that bad.

 

[eml58]

Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)

jrista check this, your half on the money.

http://fstopgear.com/staffpro/marc-adamus
Also agree this guys work is amazing.

Finally found a Post on this thread I felt I could respond to, Thanks.

 

[jrista]

Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)

jrista check this, your half on the money.

http://fstopgear.com/staffpro/marc-adamus
Also agree this guys work is amazing.

Finally found a Post on this thread I felt I could respond to, Thanks.

Welcome.

If you are referring to this:

What was your first camera? And what is your current?:
A Canon AE-1, and currently I use both a Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 on my Nikon setup. I prefer the D800 for most landscape projects currently but I’m not giving up on Canon either!

I know he has the 5D III, however if you look at the stuff he has posted recently on 500px, it all seems to be D800 (and it's REALLY FREAKING GOOD stuff, too: http://500px.com/photo/36687326/heaven-on-earth-by-marc-adamus).

 

[jrista]

...
The reason I see noise in the shadows is when you expose to preserve the highlights, you push the rest of the exposure down. This is the opposite of ETTR. This is basically what highlight tone priority does.
...

No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.

ETTR is push the histogram as far right as possible without clipping detail required. Specular highlights may be sacrificed, depending on the photographer. This is based on a "normal exposure" leaving a gap at the right of the histogram. If there is no gap then ETTR is a corrected exposure that provides maximal detail without blowing more than specular highlights.

I know that HTP only affects JPEGs, however it bumps the ISO, exposes the highlights such as to avoid clipping, then pulls the ISO back down one stop (hence the reason the minimum ISO when using HTP is 200). That is, effectively, shifting the histogram to the LEFT.

As for ETTR...if a scene meters such that the highlights clip, you can't ETTR. Your already past the point where shifting the histogram right will improve anything. Clipping highlights is far more destructive to information than pushing them down into the shadows. So, you shift the histogram LEFT again, until the highlights are not clipped. If the scene has a ton of DR...then you bury a lot of detail in the read noise floor. It's the only alternative to clipping highlights...and in Canon cameras, it's almost as bad.

Also, as far as having a gap at the end, you want a very small one (on a REAL histogram anyway...in-camera JPEG-based histograms are generally useless, and you have to muck around to figure out what the offset between a JPEG clipped highlight and a RAW clipped highlight might be, or use UniWB.) You don't want the RAW-based histogram to ride up the wall, or to even touch it. If it's touching, then at least one color channel is getting clipped. A one-pixel gap is enough of a cap to ensure that you haven't lost any highlight detail, or if your scene contains only small specular highlights, then a small bump at the right edge is usually ok.

 

[jrista]

...
I guess I disagree that the 5D III was only intended as an event/low light camera. The 5D II was the most popular landscape DSLR on the planet until the D800 came along. It's one of only two cameras in Canon's current lineup that really offers what's needed for landscapes anyway...large frame, high megapixel count...well, certainly lacking in the DR area. The 6D is the other option...but it lacks in the areas for all my other kinds of photography. Ironically, the 6D has 26.8e- RN, and does even better at high ISO than the 5D III...really confused as to why Canon did not put the 6D image sensor and readout pipeline into the 5D III...the latter did not come out much later after the 5D III...

It is rumored that the 5DIII should have been out earlier but that its release was delayed by natural disasters (Fukushima plus whatever else was going on at the time.) Thus the small release window between the 5DIII and 6D should have been much larger.

Ah, yeah, there was the natural disasters. Well, still, rather disappointing noise levels from the 5D III. It should never have been worse read noise than the 5D II.

 

[barton springs]

If you are not satisfied with Canon buy Nikon and shut up, really.

Nikon/Canon... It's almost the same thing but the level of skill of photographers
has a pretty wide delta. When you master your camera it'll make
a difference to talk about splitting hairs.

 

[Orangutan]

If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."

Depends on the hard evidence used to support the argument. Personal experiences and anecdotes don't count as hard evidence.

Simply put, the Exmor sensor can deliver raw files that can be used in ways that Canon's can't.

I'm willing to believe this is true in some cases; the question is whether it's true in a way that makes me want to give up the advantages of my Canon kit. Part of that, of course, includes the cost. There needs to be enough of an advantage. If you shoot studio or landscape, and your style involves the kinds of compositions that demonstrate the difference, the maybe it's worthwhile to you. To me, so far, it's not.

 

[Loswr]

...
The reason I see noise in the shadows is when you expose to preserve the highlights, you push the rest of the exposure down. This is the opposite of ETTR. This is basically what highlight tone priority does.
...

No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.

Piece of advice, dilbert...on technical matters, don't argue with jrista most others on CR forums anyone. You'll just end up looking (even more) foolish.

 

[Orangutan]

No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.

No.

Highlight Tone Priority (HTP)
All cameras have a fixed dynamic range, from shadow to highlight, that they can capture. HTP shifts some of the available dynamic range from the mid-tones to the highlights to produce smoother tones, with more detail in bright areas. This helps prevent JPEG images with overexposed highlights that can’t be recovered. HTP is also useful to RAW shooters who process their images with Canon’s DPP software. Most third-party RAW processing software will not recognize Highlight Tone Priority.
When the camera is set to HTP, the lowest available ISO will be 200. The HTP setting will be indicated by a D+ symbol in the LCD display. Avoid using HTP in low light or when shooting subjects with heavy shadows because it may cause more noise to appear in those areas.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_EOS_Cfn_QuickGuide.pdf

 

[Loswr]

If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."

You or anyone else stating that Canon sensors produce unusable images, images suitable only for Facebook, images suitable for printing at only up to 8x10" or 13x19", etc., is spouting crap. Period.

Simply put, the Exmor sensor can deliver raw files that can be used in ways that Canon's can't. Whether you want to call it "DRoning" (because of the difference in DR) or something else doesn't change the fact that the raw files from the 5DIII are left wanting when compared to the D8x0 (except for high - 3200+ - ISO.)

In every scene? 10 stops of scene DR, proper exposure, not trying to push shadows 5 stops. Exmor benefit? Not much.

Exmor sensors offer definite benefits in certain situations. The same can be said of Canon's lenses (and Nikon's), Canon's -RT flash system, etc.

Simply put, if Exmor sensors were 'all that', Canon's market share would be suffering by now. It's not.

 

[c.d.embrey]

So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

If you watch the Super Bowl, World Cup, etc on Television, tell me how bad it was ??? 'cuz they use cameras with EVFs.

 

[Loswr]

So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

If you watch the Super Bowl, World Cup, etc on Television, tell me how bad it was ??? 'cuz they use cameras with EVFs.

Oh, here I thought TV camera operators were just shooting video, I didn't know they had to carefully time a shutter release based on the action they were viewing. Thanks for the insight!

 

[jrista]

If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."

You or anyone else stating that Canon sensors produce unusable images, images suitable only for Facebook, images suitable for printing at only up to 8x10" or 13x19", etc., is spouting crap. Period.

Where are you getting that from? Have you actually read anything I've written? My primary concerns are about aesthetics and the amount of time required to work a photo to achieve that aesthetic goal. I also said that WITHOUT a lot of work, large prints have mushy shadow detail...not that the images are ONLY suitable for printing at 8x10 or 13x19.

Your still twisting my words, Neuro. That is absolutely NO better than what your twisted words are trying to imply I am saying.

 

[jrista]

So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

If you watch the Super Bowl, World Cup, etc on Television, tell me how bad it was ??? 'cuz they use cameras with EVFs.

Realize that the EVFs used in high end cinematography equipment are VASTLY superior to the kinds of EVFs currently found in ML cameras. VASTLY superior. Also vastly more expensive. Just one of the EVFs used in a RED Dragon camera costs more than most of the DSLRs we buy today.

 

[Don Haines]

So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

If you watch the Super Bowl, World Cup, etc on Television, tell me how bad it was ??? 'cuz they use cameras with EVFs.

Oh, here I thought TV camera operators were just shooting video, I didn't know they had to carefully time a shutter release based on the action they were viewing. Thanks for the insight!

Yet somehow, they manage to track fast moving action.......