Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII

[Memdroid]

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?

Exactly! I could care less about low-iso DR doing extreme PP slider pulls on failed shots (really!!), seriously who shoots a picture like that and calls him/herself a photographer! Any decent photographer should avoid such a hassle and make big deal out of realisticly a non-issue (or better siad their own technical failure!), what the hell is wrong with people.

 

[Loswr]

...reviews wouldn't compare the 5D3 so poorly with cameras released at about the same time or later.

More confirmation bias. Consider this comparison to the D810 (I didn't find it, the OP of this thread claimed it showed the D810 has better AF, although the review doesn't show anything of the sort). In their conclusion, they state, "The Canon 5D Mark III remains a hugely desirable camera and is still arguably the better all-rounder.

So you're saying that on the whole, Canon's customers don't need better IQ from the sensor and that improvements to the sensor wouldn't be welcomed by anyone?

Those are two separate concepts. Yes, generally speaking the majority of Canon's customers don't need better low ISO DR from the sensor, nor do they need the ability to push shadows 5 stops. But of course improvements would be welcome – it's human nature to want more of everything!

 

[RLPhoto]

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.
...

Getting a Sony A7R and Metabones connector is my current plan for 2015.

Can't wait for next year's tax refund - it's already spent!

still the same thought, same rude... regardless what camera you are using, your images are still suck...

Thank you for your comments. Do you have anything positive to say or would you just like to continue throwing insults around?

For someone who complains a lot about Canon IQ, your attachments (on CR anyway) are really lackluster. Just saying...

 

[RLPhoto]

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.
...

Getting a Sony A7R and Metabones connector is my current plan for 2015.

Can't wait for next year's tax refund - it's already spent!

still the same thought, same rude... regardless what camera you are using, your images are still suck...

Thank you for your comments. Do you have anything positive to say or would you just like to continue throwing insults around?

For someone who complains a lot about Canon IQ, your attachments (on CR anyway) are really lackluster. Just saying...

Considering that they're what I consider to be throw aways ...

So your Yosemite photos which you claim is some of your best are throw aways? Whatever, they are still pretty lackluster in comparison to your ramblings.

 

[Maui5150]

I just have to laugh at most in this thread...

The premise at hand... Comparing a new camera to a camera going on 3 years-old and stating that the new one is improved.

Really. Shocker?

The fact that it has taken x number of years is the real testament...

But what do we know?

We do know the 7D MK II is shipping shortly and by all accounts appears again to be the king of the crops. While some may say its low light or DR are not up to snuff it is much improved over the 7D and the AF system, FPS and general features are tops.

We know that the D800 was a POS and a disappointment... So much so that they released the 810 just about a year later. I would be pretty pissed if I picked a camera up a few months after release and it was already outdated/replaced in a year. Talk about taking a HIT on your investment.

We know Canon looks to have plans for a High MP, 1Dx II and 5D MK IV in the pipeline in the next 3 - 12 months and likely the 1DX MK is announced before end of the year and 5D IV early next year. Looking the the Digic 6 processors and the buffer capability of the 7D MK II both of these couple see marked improvements in FPS, AF and better sensors.

Keep comparing to the past, all of these comparisons are moot and passing... Lets see how the 750 compared to the 5D MK IV

 

[AcutancePhotography]

It is really not necessary to nest quote. We can follow the discussion quite nicely without it.

 

[RLPhoto]

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.
...

Getting a Sony A7R and Metabones connector is my current plan for 2015.

Can't wait for next year's tax refund - it's already spent!

still the same thought, same rude... regardless what camera you are using, your images are still suck...

Thank you for your comments. Do you have anything positive to say or would you just like to continue throwing insults around?

For someone who complains a lot about Canon IQ, your attachments (on CR anyway) are really lackluster. Just saying...

Considering that they're what I consider to be throw aways ...

So your Yosemite photos which you claim is some of your best are throw aways? Whatever, they are still pretty lackluster in comparison to your ramblings.

The yosemite pic (sunset) is blurred due to the camera moving. It's useless for anything other than a web forum.

So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

 

[Sporgon]

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.
...

Getting a Sony A7R and Metabones connector is my current plan for 2015.

Can't wait for next year's tax refund - it's already spent!

still the same thought, same rude... regardless what camera you are using, your images are still suck...

Thank you for your comments. Do you have anything positive to say or would you just like to continue throwing insults around?

For someone who complains a lot about Canon IQ, your attachments (on CR anyway) are really lackluster. Just saying...

Considering that they're what I consider to be throw aways ...

So your Yosemite photos which you claim is some of your best are throw aways? Whatever, they are still pretty lackluster in comparison to your ramblings.

The yosemite pic (sunset) is blurred due to the camera moving. It's useless for anything other than a web forum.

So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

One hundred and eighty !!

Or for anyone that has never played darts;

Bullseye !

 

[weixing]

I just have to laugh at most in this thread...

The premise at hand... Comparing a new camera to a camera going on 3 years-old and stating that the new one is improved.

Really. Shocker?

The fact that it has taken x number of years is the real testament...

But what do we know?

We do know the 7D MK II is shipping shortly and by all accounts appears again to be the king of the crops. While some may say its low light or DR are not up to snuff it is much improved over the 7D and the AF system, FPS and general features are tops.

We know that the D800 was a POS and a disappointment... So much so that they released the 810 just about a year later. I would be pretty pissed if I picked a camera up a few months after release and it was already outdated/replaced in a year. Talk about taking a HIT on your investment.

We know Canon looks to have plans for a High MP, 1Dx II and 5D MK IV in the pipeline in the next 3 - 12 months and likely the 1DX MK is announced before end of the year and 5D IV early next year. Looking the the Digic 6 processors and the buffer capability of the 7D MK II both of these couple see marked improvements in FPS, AF and better sensors.

Keep comparing to the past, all of these comparisons are moot and passing... Lets see how the 750 compared to the 5D MK IV

Hi,
I think it might be D799 (Nikon running out of numbers) vs Canon 5D IV

By the way, I think sales of D750 will not be good... because every Nikon user thinking may be Nikon will be releasing a new model in the next few months...

Have a nice day.

 

[Loswr]

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.

How do you conclude that it's 'free'?? Does that extra low ISO DR come with a handholdable 600/4? Does it come with an AF system having >40 cross-type points? Etc.

 

[Loswr]

...
So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

Yes, I had the wrong tripod at hand (the one I had dropped marginally whilst the shutter was open due to lens weight.) Or in other words, I know exactly why I ended up with a blurred photo.

Yes – poor technique.

Roger Cicala referred to that sort of mistake as an ERFLOK.

 

[Maui5150]

So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

+1 Gazillion Googolplex

I think what is really at hand is the camera did not compensate for lousy skills

 

[RLPhoto]

So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

+1 Gazillion Googolplex

I think what is really at hand is the camera did not compensate for lousy skills

It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

Would anyone else like to showcase their ignorance?

Your showcasing your denial at the moment.

 

[Loswr]

It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

IGEL = inadequate grasp of equipment limitations

IEFT = inadequate equipment for task

Both your fault. Nice try blaming the tools, though.

 

[Sporgon]

So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

+1 Gazillion Googolplex

I think what is really at hand is the camera did not compensate for lousy skills

It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

Would anyone else like to showcase their ignorance?

Come on Dildert, man up ! You've admitted it was your use of that particular head with that camera, lens combo. The head was not faulty, ergo you as the operator were faulty.

 

[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?

"Most photographers". I love that term. How do you know what "most photographers" need? Have you surveyed them?

Unfortunately flickr doesn't do ranking on ISO (and nor will Google be able to do search results for that either.) However I suspect that there will be more pictures rated ISO 100-400 than there are at (say) 1600-6400.

Yes "most photographers" expose correctly no matter the ISO. My 1DX or 5D3 ISO 100 images will have the same great IQ (but better colors IMO) as the Nikon because it is exposed correctly and captures all the DR I need. And most photographers do the same. It is a rare case that I need more DR and would not sacrifice any of the other features the Canon excels at for a little extra low ISO DR latitude. That is the only noticeable benefit of the Sony sensor.

 

[RLPhoto]

So you took the time to visit Yosemite, attempted to take a photo of half dome at possibly a very nice time, (blue hour) and you got all this great equipment which ended up in a shaky photo? Sir, you have bigger issues than DR.

+1 Gazillion Googolplex

I think what is really at hand is the camera did not compensate for lousy skills

It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

Would anyone else like to showcase their ignorance?

Your showcasing your denial at the moment.

*laugh*

It is good to see that this thread has done the usual - diverted away from talking about Canon and at insulting/attacking a person. I should be flattered by your attention but picking on me or my pictures won't make the 5D3's sensor any less noisy or otherwise improve its IQ relative to the D750.

Although maybe I should try this out:
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/reduce-camera-shake-induced-blurring.html

Well I was honest about this. You have almost 3000+ posts and decided to look at the photos you posted and was disappointed. I inquired as to why and discovered that perhaps the gear is not your limitation as much as you believe it is. More than likely you are passionate enough to visit Yosemite but when the time came to get the shot, it wasn't the camera that failed here and no amount of DR would help. I just think it's good to step back and really see what is needed to make a photo better. 99% of the time, it's us, the person behind the camera.

 

[Loswr]

It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

IGEL = inadequate grasp of equipment limitations

IEFT = inadequate equipment for task

Both your fault. Nice try blaming the tools, though.

See my comment above. I was well aware of the equipment's limitations but took a risk.

If I didn't take a risk then there would have been no photo.

Is a blurry, throw-away (your words) photo anything other than no photo? Have you posted the good ones somewhere? Last time I was in Yosemite was many years ago, I didn't have a camera. I enjoyed the views of Half Dome from the valley floor, and the views of the valley floor from the top of Half Dome during lunch on our day hike.

 

[RLPhoto]

...
Well I was honest about this. You have almost 3000+ posts and decided to look at the photos you posted and was disappointed. I inquired as to why and discovered that perhaps the gear is not your limitation as much as you believe it is. More than likely you are passionate enough to visit Yosemite but when the time came to get the shot, it wasn't the camera that failed here and no amount of DR would help. I just think it's good to step back and really see what is needed to make a photo better. 99% of the time, it's us, the person behind the camera.

Why don't you explain to me what I went through at that particular point in time of picture taking? I mean since you're going to judge me, why not lend your expertise into explaining how it all eventuated?

You judged yourself by your own statements, all I did was draw them out. Others can draw their own conclusions.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

On here? Nope. Why would I? Just to get vilified over things that I like? No thanks.

That's a real good point. No matter which photograph you post, someone will find something to complain about it. So why bother?