Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII

[sanj]

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.

Dont understand. Just because we have handhold able 600, we should not get better IQ at lower ISO?

The point is, a lens that big is generally used for stopping action, which requires faster shutter speeds and higher ISO's. So the Exmor low ISO 'advantage' is totally moot.

I do not think that is the point. In decent light at f4 it is easy to get 1/250 and faster at ISO 100.
What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.

 

[Loswr]

What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.

Please provide a logical solution to 'have the best sensor' (as you put it) and 'have a handholdable 600/4...and >40 cross-type points...and a 5x macro lens...etc.

The point is that the they are mutually exclusive. If you'd like to fantasize, I'll take 30 stops of DR, 200 MP, ISO 1638400 with no visible noise and all 30 stops of DR, and throw in a handholdable 1200mm f/2.8.

Dilbert's claim that more DR at low ISO than Canon offers is a 'free feature' isn't tenable. Bare silicon sensors don't take pictures. Those sensors are parts of cameras, which are parts of systems. We buy cameras and systems, not sensors. Sure, I want the best...everything. But in the real world, we have to make choices.

 

[Loswr]

To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.

Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.

Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?

I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard. Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels.

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post? Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).

 

[sanj]

What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.

Please provide a logical solution to 'have the best sensor' (as you put it) and 'have a handholdable 600/4...and >40 cross-type points...and a 5x macro lens...etc.

The point is that the they are mutually exclusive. If you'd like to fantasize, I'll take 30 stops of DR, 200 MP, ISO 1638400 with no visible noise and all 30 stops of DR, and throw in a handholdable 1200mm f/2.8.

Dilbert's claim that more DR at low ISO than Canon offers is a 'free feature' isn't tenable. Bare silicon sensors don't take pictures. Those sensors are parts of cameras, which are parts of systems. We buy cameras and systems, not sensors. Sure, I want the best...everything. But in the real world, we have to make choices.

Yes, you are right - I am being greedy. I wish Canon would give me the best of everything.

 

[Sporgon]

To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.

Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.

Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?

I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard. Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels.

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post? Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).

The number of users that would benefit from better low ISO (100-400) IQ when pushing five stops

Did your computer freeze ? You didn't finish your last sentence, so I took the liberty of doing so.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

The first line under "important notes" in this "review" put me off...apparently he considers himself unbiased...and yet he's a log term Nikon user with Nikon lenses...yeah right....really unbiased. In the same way, if i pick up a D750...I'd compare it favorably with a 5DIII.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

The first line under "important notes" in this "review" put me off...apparently he considers himself unbiased...and yet he's a log term Nikon user with Nikon lenses...yeah right....really unbiased.

Are you equally concerned with long time Canon users saying good stuff about Canon?

There is no such thing as an unbiased human. Which is why I don't care about reviewer's opinions or "impressions" but more concerned with measurable data.

 

[unfocused]

This whole debate is goofy.

Nikon released a 5DIII competitor about 2 1/2 years after the 5DIII. Except it's not quite a competitor because it's built more like a 6D than a 5D, so it's sort of a 5.5D competitor.

The D750 costs $2,300. I bought a special bundle package last year from one of the "big two" paid about about $2,600 net for the body after everything was said and done. So, it costs an extra $300 to go from a 5.5D to a full fledged 5D.

Now, if I were a Nikon user, I might be excited by this option. But, would I switch systems to save $300 on a body that will replaced in a year or two – no way.

 

[ishdakuteb]

...Do you get a 6D plus EF lenses or jump ship to the D610?..

my question is that i am holding 6d plus ef lenses while you are holding d610 or even d750... put black tape on your and my back lcds. who will deliver better images? i bet you that all your images will turn out like CRAPPPP...

want to have a bet?

 

[Sporgon]

To use the "economics" argument, how many 600/4's are sold compared to kit lenses? Not very many.

Thus the number of 600/4 owners is a minority when compared to owners of 18-55, etc.

Which would make owners of 600/4 asking for high ISO a vocal minority, yes?

I'm not asking for high ISO (performance), my 1D X is excellent in that regard. Nor have I seen other Canon 600/4 owners clamoring for better high ISO performance...that's an area where Canon excels.

I wonder which group is larger – the number of 600/4 owners, or the number of people who need to push their low ISO images 5 stops in post? Honestly, both are very small minority groups (with at least one person on CR being in both)...but only one of those groups is vocal (endlessly so...).

The number of users that would benefit from better low ISO (100-400) IQ

Did your computer freeze ? You didn't finish your last sentence, so I took the liberty of doing so.

If you only see benefit in better IQ at ISO 400 and below on occasions when you need to push 5 stops then I feel sorry for you.

Using the front page of flickr, I click "explore". The distribution of ISO across the first 32 images is:
8 No ISO
11 100
1 1250
3 200
5 400
1 4000
2 500
1 80
(I stopped at 32 because the tab bar in chrome was looking a bit full.)

Feel free to write an essay or add more witty comments about how it makes more economic sense to improve camera performance at ISO ratings that 1/16th of the population uses than it does at an ISO setting that 1/3 of the population uses. Or just continue flaming away in ignorance.

The attached image is evidence of just how bad the banding is. And this is at ISO 100, where IQ is meant to be at its best. How far did I push the image? 1.9 stops. Note again that the histogram indicates that there is a continued presence of detail all the way up to the highlights (some of which are blown and elsewhere in the image), meaning that there is not really any room for ETTR. Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera then that banding and noise in the shadow area that has been lifted simply wouldn't be there.

The histogram is from the exposure push. You have pushed virtually zero data and got FPN as a result. It doesn't matter if it a half stop push or five. I think that nearly everyone accepts that if you want to push zero data you will get less noise from the Exmor. That ship has sailed. Forget it, nobody is interested in this now but the likes of yourself. This whole debate has distilled out to the base nitty gritty: forget overall dynamic range, you have to push zero data to see the result you want.

You can keep posting images like this but all you are doing is waving a white flag as far as your argument is concerned.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

While the dead horse continues to be beaten, I'll introduce the subject of reliability and customer service/satisfaction over people bragging about other's sensor quality.
At the Reno Air Races, Nikon loans out bodies and lenses for free- all categories.
This year the lens failure rate exceeded the usual low noise(complaint) level
and caused quite a bit of discussion. I heard of many lens issues and witnessed
three shooters next to me have lens failures.
A 400 just all out died and two have lens that had focusing issues,
a few had VR problems. One shooter next to me one the buss complained of
getting a lens that wouldn't auto-focus and went through three before getting
a good one. Between races, we will do some pixel peeping. One of the shooters started bitching about all the Nikon 400's shots being soft. We had plenty of time to troubleshoot and do testing. I had my 100-400 and shot the same subject, then compared. Yes, it was softer( ! ) and less contrast. We left the test shots on each card for later discussion.
We are stuck out at the pylons for half a day with no way of returning. When you have a failure, you go sit in the bus and wait till it's over. That didn't go over well- to say the least!
Upon return to the media headquarters, we went to the Nikon room and returned the borrowed 400 and told them it was soft. Even with test shots from both cameras, they wouldn't believe us. The Nikon rep just put it back on the shelf.
One of my friends borrowed a Nikon only to find all his images had a magenta tint. He is now a pixel-peeper after not closely checking his results during the day. I didn't get to look a the body before he returned it, but I guessing the previous user did some night photography the day before or maybe the body was messed up some way. Others had noticed things like ISO settings were set high. I guess Nikon never checked the returned bodies before loaning them out.
Yes, there are happy Nikon & Canon shooters out there, but when the crap hits the fan it gets real.
All my screwed up shots were my fault, not my Canon gear. It really pisses me off when there is nobody else to blame!

 

[V8Beast]

The attached image is evidence of just how bad the banding is. And this is at ISO 100, where IQ is meant to be at its best. How far did I push the image? 1.9 stops.

And what exactly are you shooting that requires pushing the image 1.9 stops? Since when is 1.9 stops a trivial amount?

If you say what you were shooting in that particular image doesn't matter, it's a cop out. Otherwise, you have now way of proving whether it's a legitimate case where more DR would have benefited your particular shooting needs, or if it's a blatantly contrived scenario merely to prove your point. Let me guess, you were trying to shoot a black bear climbing a polar ice cap at high noon. I hate when that happens.

Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera then that banding and noise in the shadow area that has been lifted simply wouldn't be there.

Why don't you do that then? Can an Exmor sensor also compensate for an overloaded ballhead? Can Exmor cure camera shake due to operator error?

 

[tolusina]

.... a blatantly contrived scenario merely to prove your point........

That's what is often considered passive aggressive behavior, dilbert seems to come by it naturally, don't call him on it though, that makes him really jiggy.

Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera ...

Please please dilbert, if you don't yet have an Exmor based camera, sell off all your Canon gear right now and buy one.
Hopefully, you'll lose all interest in things Canon and CR, should you then choose to grace us with your absence, the atmosphere here on CR can then lighten considerably.

I suspect that once you start posting in Sonykon/Exmor forums, those folk will soon tire of your continued rants regarding build quality, lens choices, support issues, lack of conservative market stability, menus, ergonomics, flash systems, etc..

 

[Loswr]

Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match

Of course you will...at least before you take off the lens cap.

 

[ishdakuteb]

1. Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match
2. Flash systems? For 99%+ of my shots I don't use a flash.

1. i am here and waiting for that day... and sorry to say this to you... no, yours images can not compete with my images regardless your whatever systems, even with my set of canon 30d and 430ex ii that i use everyday...
2. ah, you cannot shoot available light properly, and you do not know how to use flash... what the heck have you been learning? trying to get camera to do it for you? and lean toward post process? no wonder why all of them are crap images...

1. I just clicked "Auto" in LR and that's what it did.
2. As I've said previously, next year's tax refund for 2014 will be spent on Sony equipment and not Canon. I'm sick of this s**t and sick of waiting for Canon to fix their sensors.

1. back to previous one, number 2... ah... what the heck have you been learning in those previous years? clicking on auto? lol
2. thought that you are smart, you understand sensor design in and out and you do not have money to buy camera now, have to wait for tax return? i thought that you were r/d engineer who made lots of money? ;D

...it's the Canon sensor saying "I can't do this, get an Exmor."

go and get it when your money comes and have fun with highlight sources, especially blue. this problem can be fix in software/firmware, but expect to see down side from level of sharpness, noise and dr (your favorite)... this is my prediction...

NOTE: YOU STILL HAVE AN QUESTION TO ANSWER "DOES SENSOR MAKE CAMERA" FROM PREVIOUS POST. THINK MULTIPLE TIMES PRIOR TO ANSWER...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLlU6U2-zM, or

http://community.sony.com/t5/Alpha-NEX-Cameras/Sony-a7s-image-sensor-problem-shooting-bright-light-sources/td-p/445268

 

[tolusina]

........ Let me clue you in on something: nature isn't built with photographers in mind.......

Um, nature, the world, everything in it, light, shadows, contrast, tonal gradations, compositional elements, all available instantly in infinite combinations, combinations that continually change with time of day, year, weather, viewer's mood and perspective, another combination available with a single step in any direction, words can never even begin to describe a single instant of our visual input to a blind person yet a click of the shutter can record and archive any instant to share with the sighted.
You are so wrong dilbert, nature is indeed symbiotic with photography, you have no cluing me in to do here, none.

......Flash systems? For 99%+ of my shots I don't use a flash.........

Shadows dilbert, your favorite topic and you and your use of your gear's inability to reproduce detail from shadows; shadows are places where light is reduced or blocked partially or entirely.
I think you could stand to learn some lighting techniques beyond simple, flash is one way shadows can, in a controlled manner, be exposed to light and exposed to your sensor.
You are welcome to wish for exquisite detail in every crag in every distant mountain in a landscape scene, you are welcome to continue to wish.

I'm already committing next year's tax return to buying Sony...

…....Conservative market stability is not something that I desire. My camera and lenses are tools, not investments. A digital camera (like any other technology product) is obsolete the day it is announced........

And there's the crux.
You have no budget for the gear you desire, you're waiting on next year's return.
You have my sympathy, I've been there too.
While there, I learned that I had to accept and work within budget limitations, it served no one, especially myself, to continually protest things I could not change. I longed for a 5DII for so long, the 5DIII was released and longed for, then the 6D arrived along with a budget change, meanwhile I worked a D80.
Perhaps if you'd had a conservative and stable outlook to your purchases, you'd have gotten more enduring satisfaction from those purchases.

In other TLR words, step up (buy your desired Exmor now) or step aside (grace us with your absence).

 

[tolusina]

.....LOL! That's so funny. I'm going to be nice and not say any more because you've said more than I expect you realize about yourself here.........

I assure you, I'm well aware of what I wrote, every word carefully considered and chosen. I find it odd that you find it laughable and worthy of your disrespect.

......Nah, you'd miss me.....

Not in the least, that's a promise.

 

[ishdakuteb]

Ah, you make me laugh.

because i am right and you speechless... lol...

If I were a smart r/d engineer that made lots of money, I'd have already bought a new Sony system.

negation/complement of smart is stupid (assume smart=1 and stupid=0; thus ¬smart is stupid)... if it was true, so why were you trying to educate us?

But photographers that I respect are no longer buying Canon or shooting with Canon. (Some never have but then they've never used Nikon or Sony either.)

If you're happy with your camera, keep it. The tide is starting to move and I think I'll swim with it, not against it.

might to name some of those who you respect? i am courious yep... just curious, but not switching since i am able to deliver images with any modern camera... however, NOT SONY - A COMPANY, IN HISTORY, SILENTLY INSTALLED SPYWARES/ROOTKITS INTO THEIR CUSTOMER SYSTEMS...

 

[Sporgon]

Ishdakuteb, old pal; he's not worth it

 

[Marsu42]

But photographers that I respect are no longer buying Canon or shooting with Canon.

might to name some of those who you respect? i am courious

I nearly wanted to ask, too, but sporon is correct: don't feed the troll.