Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII

[Kahuna]

I used to say that technology is killing XX .... in this case photography. I am wrong about that, technology is taking photography in another direction, IMHO the wrong direction. When technology levels the playing field for all afforadably, when all I have to do is turn that dial to the green P, not worry about the photo because post processing will take care of any issues, photography is dead. Composition, lighting, position, weather are just reduced to chance moments that anyone carrying an IPhone has an equal probability of capturing that moment....Probably a higher probability ...

The younger generation are not looking for technology advances in a DLSR camera, what they do expect is that the technology advances are crammed into their IPhone 6.

A camera is slowly becoming nothing more than a vehicle to take a selfie and quickly post it online for every to "LIKE".

There is photography and there is art. Someone taking selfies isn't producing art...it's just a "picture", a memory, something they share with their friends. The stuff Ross Harvy produces? That's art. It may be his job, but it's also his art.

There is a difference between photographic art and pictures people share with their friends. That's why I've said on multiple occasions I really don't care about the Rebels or point and shoot cameras. The market I care about is the higher end market. The xxDs and the DXXXs, the 5Ds and 7Ds and D4s and D800s and A7rs and all of that? Those are the tools artists use to create art.

You act like better technology is the end of photography, just because everyone can snap a selfie. Seriously? Do you think all the artists out there who's art is photography are suddenly going to be incapable of creating art because a few million more people are able to take selfies now? Is the quality of their art doing to diminish because a billion smartphones have cameras now? I mean, honestly?

There are snapshots, and there is art. Just like there were polaroids on fridges and 4x5 or 8x10 contact prints in galleries during the film age. For artists, better technology removes limitations and allows for better art. It blows my mind that people are against technological improvement because they don't want more people to be able to take photographs. Or, and this is far more important...discover that they may have potential as a photographer, a real photographer, and become a world-renown artist. Technology improves accessibility...that's a GOOD thing!! I find it incredibly selfish and egotistical that some people would halt technological progress to stunt the ability of more "non-photographers" to take good photographs. Wow.

I'm out guys. These discussions are just...low. I have no interest anymore.

So I took neutral ground on your position with sensors/cameras. I did make comment on the pitfalls of technology. Yes I was so bold as to say that photography as "art" is in jeopardy. The interest of our younger generation in using photography as a vehicle for art is eroding quickly and being replaced with junk (I use selfies as the example). Your opinion differs, thats fine. No personal attack there yet you call me a fool. Thank you. Thank you for exposing your true colors.


You cannot deny that technology kills... unless you are the fool.

 

[AprilForever]

http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review

Quite an excited review of the Nikon D750. Sample pictures look really great. Especially high iso looks impressive. Says he also worked with the 5DIII and that it does not compare for his work (weddings).

Agree with reviewer that Canon has work cut out for them selves trying to make the 5DIV competitive (either by slashing the price range or jumping the specs).

All the better for us that Canon is under stiff pressure to deliver this time around. This time there will no excuse that Nikon pulled a rabbit.

1. Of course the D750 is better than the 5D III. But who cares?
2. I know Ross's website says he is the best photographer is the world, but I hate his framing. His style is annoying.
3. The 5D IV will be far better than the D750. So, what matters? This is what happens with model year differences.
4. It is highly improbable that anyone could easily come up with any way in particular in a real world meaningful way how it is better. This is not the D300 vs. the 20D.

 

[V8Beast]

I only made it half way through Ross Harvey's portfolio. I take it he's won an award or two in his day ;D? Why doesn't he just include a slide that says "My wife loves my foot-long package"

 

[jaayres20]

Something is not right with his 5D3 example pushed 5 stops. I have a 1DX which is very similar and I did a test that doesn't look near as bad as his example. It isn't good, but it is as good as you could expect with a drastically underexposed image at 1/13 handheld.

 

[zlatko]

Something is not right with his 5D3 example pushed 5 stops. I have a 1DX which is very similar and I did a test that doesn't look near as bad as his example.

No, the 5D3 sample is correct. The sensor in the 5D3 is almost the same as the 5D2 - complete with banding and noise. Canon did nothing to improve the IQ of the sensor between these two cameras.

This is just gratuitous Canon-bashing. You've really got nothing better to do? I shot two 5D2's for years and have shot a 5D3 for years, and the 5D3 is significantly better at high ISO. Even DxO gives the 5D3 a better low light score (478 points better). Both cameras are excellent for their intended purpose, which is to make photos, not to make or save 5-stop drastically underexposed near-black frames like the piano shot above. They've been used by pros the world over. The 5D series are some of the most commonly used cameras by World Press Photo contest winners each year. A few anonymous self-appointed sensor critics on the internet don't like them, so they hammer these cameras at every opportunity. Meanwhile ratings by buyers are overwhelmingly positive.

 

[sanj]

Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.

Haven't you heard? With a Nikon camera, you don't need to change ISO – just set ISO 100 and you're done. In post you can push it to ISO 3200, with a SoNikon sensor that's easy-peasy and the IQ is still better than Canon. Or so I've read somewhere or other... :

You make fun of it...but it's possible. Because there is practically no read noise, digitally lifting ISO 100 to ISO 1600 or 3200 is effectively the same thing as actually using those ISOs (with the added benefit of having massively more dynamic range).

Jon, I hope you are wrong. Serious, whats left when you have eliminated the science and have dug deeply into the art of photography....Composition?! Not really a concern on these massive megapixel cameras....

As Ron Popeil stated - Set It and Forget It -

Sorry, not sure I understand... You hope I'm wrong about what? ???

Composition is obviously important. Getting good focus is obviously important. Getting the right frame is obviously important. I'm not saying they are not, no one who appreciates more DR is.

But here is my stance on the issue. When you nail all of those other factors. And, it's more than possible to nail every one with any pro- or semipro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon (and some even from Sony, and probably Pentax as well). We already have cameras with phenomenal AF systems, with very high frame rates (although the best frame rates do tend to cost), and composition is a simple matter of preference...reframe to taste. When you get all that right, what's left? Sensor IQ.

I already have awesome AF. I already have a great frame rate (7D) and a good frame rate (5D III, the 1D X is out of my acceptable range of cost). I already know how to get good composition. When it comes to landscapes, a lot of it is simply a waiting game...waiting for the right light, the right weather, and being at the right place in time to get the shot. When all that comes together...the only thing I don't have, is the best sensor IQ money can buy.

It's not a complicated equation. 8)

I used to say that technology is killing XX .... in this case photography. I am wrong about that, technology is taking photography in another direction, IMHO the wrong direction. When technology levels the playing field for all afforadably, when all I have to do is turn that dial to the green P, not worry about the photo because post processing will take care of any issues, photography is dead. Composition, lighting, position, weather are just reduced to chance moments that anyone carrying an IPhone has an equal probability of capturing that moment....Probably a higher probability ...

The younger generation are not looking for technology advances in a DLSR camera, what they do expect is that the technology advances are crammed into their IPhone 6.

A camera is slowly becoming nothing more than a vehicle to take a selfie and quickly post it online for every to "LIKE".

Must tell you that I think just the opposite. Art can, and is created by an iPhone and such. Normal (selfie) sort of pictures can be created by top end cameras. It all depends upon the user.
Advancement in technology is a great thing to happen in life including photography. Lots of different kinds of pictures can be taken now with advancement in technology. And remember that not all photographers are artists. They take pictures to capture the moment.

 

[ishdakuteb]

No, the 5D3 sample is correct. The sensor in the 5D3 is almost the same as the 5D2 - complete with banding and noise. Canon did nothing to improve the IQ of the sensor between these two cameras.

so, according to dxo, both sony and nikon are both good at IQ when comparing to canon. why don't you take any of them, i do not mind even if you are using D4s which has better focus. i am going to borrow my friend 5d mark ii instead of using my 5d mark iii. let see whose images are better... yours or mine... ;D

with shooting candid images, your choice of:

1. sooc images, or
2. after post processing

pick one... if you wait more, you will not have any more chances since my skills keep going up, not going down even though i am not a photographer...

 

[9VIII]

Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.

Haven't you heard? With a Nikon camera, you don't need to change ISO – just set ISO 100 and you're done. In post you can push it to ISO 3200, with a SoNikon sensor that's easy-peasy and the IQ is still better than Canon. Or so I've read somewhere or other... :

You make fun of it...but it's possible. Because there is practically no read noise, digitally lifting ISO 100 to ISO 1600 or 3200 is effectively the same thing as actually using those ISOs (with the added benefit of having massively more dynamic range).

Jon, I hope you are wrong. Serious, whats left when you have eliminated the science and have dug deeply into the art of photography....Composition?! Not really a concern on these massive megapixel cameras....

As Ron Popeil stated - Set It and Forget It -

Sorry, not sure I understand... You hope I'm wrong about what? ???

Composition is obviously important. Getting good focus is obviously important. Getting the right frame is obviously important. I'm not saying they are not, no one who appreciates more DR is.

But here is my stance on the issue. When you nail all of those other factors. And, it's more than possible to nail every one with any pro- or semipro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon (and some even from Sony, and probably Pentax as well). We already have cameras with phenomenal AF systems, with very high frame rates (although the best frame rates do tend to cost), and composition is a simple matter of preference...reframe to taste. When you get all that right, what's left? Sensor IQ.

I already have awesome AF. I already have a great frame rate (7D) and a good frame rate (5D III, the 1D X is out of my acceptable range of cost). I already know how to get good composition. When it comes to landscapes, a lot of it is simply a waiting game...waiting for the right light, the right weather, and being at the right place in time to get the shot. When all that comes together...the only thing I don't have, is the best sensor IQ money can buy.

It's not a complicated equation. 8)

I used to say that technology is killing XX .... in this case photography. I am wrong about that, technology is taking photography in another direction, IMHO the wrong direction. When technology levels the playing field for all afforadably, when all I have to do is turn that dial to the green P, not worry about the photo because post processing will take care of any issues, photography is dead. Composition, lighting, position, weather are just reduced to chance moments that anyone carrying an IPhone has an equal probability of capturing that moment....Probably a higher probability ...

The younger generation are not looking for technology advances in a DLSR camera, what they do expect is that the technology advances are crammed into their IPhone 6.

A camera is slowly becoming nothing more than a vehicle to take a selfie and quickly post it online for every to "LIKE".

This subject is so inherently, subjective, that I can't honestly look at a three year old's finger paintings any differently than the Mona Lisa.
Some stuff tells a story and makes people cry, you could try to define "good art" by the emotional reaction it evokes, but that still doesn't work on everyone.

My stance is still that "good" art is wholly and entirely defined by the person producing it. If it lives up to their expectations, then it's good. Anything beyond that is just people looking for consensus, which ironically is measured just as well in "likes" as it is in dollars.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

And the purpose of this thread is what?

Trolling.

Do I get a prize?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The actual wedding shots he pushed? I've pushed... files harder then that on an old 7D.

Yep - me too.

The confirmation bias among the DR crowd is ridiculous

It's pathetic - I actually think there's something clinically wrong with them...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

You make fun of it...but it's possible.

And if if I was utterly incompetent I might see the benefit...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Their complaints included things like...

1/4000 shutter speed!

That right there kills it stone dead for me.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

All things considered, Canon is coming under a lot of pressure to advance their sensors.

No they're not - they're coming under a little bit of pressure interminably from a tiny but unbelievably vocal subset of their customer base who somehow believe their "needs" are more important than anyone else's.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

 

[SoullessPolack]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer. Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose. Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong. This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

 

[Maiaibing]

No they're not - they're coming under a little bit of pressure interminably from a tiny but unbelievably vocal subset of their customer base who somehow believe their "needs" are more important than anyone else's.

Sales and market share are the main pressure points. I'm not in Canon's board room - but I have participated in lots of board meetings and my guess is that whoever is trying to explain Canon's double digit sales dive is under enormous pressure to stem that tide. Especially since the key competitor seemingly is capturing market share at the same time.

Business is though this way.

 

[Loswr]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer. Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose. Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong. This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

Speaking of a lack of critical thought...when the light is so very low, do you usually find yourself shooting action at ISO 100? At ISO 400? Or have you raised your ISO higher than that...where the differences between Canon and Exmor sensors have evaporated (or the Canon sensor has the advantage)? (BTW, I trust someone so knowledgable as yourself won't bother bringing up the a7S in the context of sports/action).

 

[jaayres20]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer. Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose. Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong. This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

Speaking of a lack of critical thought...when the light is so very low, do you usually find yourself shooting action at ISO 100? At ISO 400? Or have you raised your ISO higher than that...where the differences between Canon and Exmor sensors have evaporated (or the Canon sensor has the advantage)? (BTW, I trust someone so knowledgable as yourself won't bother bringing up the a7S in the context of sports/action).

Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.

The IQ isn't better unless you need a lot of extra DR at low ISO, which is hardly necessary for most photographers. And for that extra DR you are trading for a camera that is still lesser in a lot of areas than the more than two year older Canon. And what about lenses? Also a better flash system. Does this new Nikon have a better AF system than the past, or is it the same 51 point and less than 20 cross type sensors?

 

[dtaylor]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer. Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose. Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong. This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

Pretty sure of yourself there. One question: why are you underexposing instead of just bumping ISO?

 

[sanj]

Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer. Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose. Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong. This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

Call me a 'text book' guy but I do not believe in over exposing or underexposing. (Unless it is to create a mood). Why? Because I know wrong exposure effects IQ.