Sadly, the 6dm2 and 5div to be obsolete shortly
- Thread starter deadwrong
- Start date
Talys said:
Just make better Raw converter choices, Talys.
7D MK II (by all accounts not as good at high ISO as the 80D):
10,000 ISO.
The noise here is "as is" from the converter, no additional PP NR applied.
Nothing wrong with this...
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Yep.
I, for one, am a bit tired of responding "in kind" to trolls (and it's going to happen), only then to get a slap on the wrist by the mods, while the troll is allowed to carry on regardless...
Upvote
0
Sarpedon said:
When we "react" to trolls, we are taking responsibility for our own behaviour - and challenging that of the trolls too, in the absence of a official voice doing the same thing.
It shouldn't be necessary, but it continues to be, nevertheless...
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
I don't believe that at all - it's "special pleading" intended to defend a sensor that isn't another "technical miracle" of the kind that we poor Canon users are apparently denying ourselves by our ignorant fanboyism...
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
I asked Keith this same question a year or so ago in a PM but never got a reply. I suspect it's Photo Ninja.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
The answer, or at least the method to get the answer, is very simple - MSU (Make Stuff Up)
Canon, Nikon, Sony all have their strong areas and not so strong areas. If you only consider the photography on a narrow basis, then any one of these (or perhaps others such as Phase One, Hasselblad, ...) can be leading the pack.
Pick your poison
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
I have tried Photo Ninja with Lightroom, and I really dislike the workflow options. Either you have TIFF files in between that make everything massive, or you lose the ability to go back through history -- which is one of the most appealing things about LightRoom.
It's fine if you have a relatively small number of photos to run through PhotoNinja.
I do two broad categories of photography -- indoor, studio shots which are all at base ISO, and outdoor shots, where ISO is at whatever the conditions/equipment constraints require. For the indoor shots at base ISO, DPP or PhotoNinja is just fine. Because my studio shots are of product and I control every aspect of lighting, I only take a couple of each shot, and 99.999% of the time, they're indistinguishable anyways. I have confidence that all of them are going to essentially be perfect, and the second shot is really just a spare in case a semi drove by and shook the ground or something to jigger up focus.
For these types, PhotoNinja is just fine, and for that matter, so is DPP, because the shooting conditions were ideal, there's not really any cataloguing going on, and after post, I retain only 1 shot of each item, usually named the item's part number, and it can all be managed from filesystem.
For the outdoor stuff (almost all wildlife, the occasional sunset or scenery), I can easily take 500++ shots in a couple of hours if I go to somewhere that's a subject-rich environment (like a wildlife sanctuary). LightRoom is a wonderful tool, because it lets me keep them organized, and sort through, organize and cull them in my spare time -- quickly flagging/eliminating photos or picking through ones that are better than others. It's really fast an easy to develop one photo in a scene, and then apply the same to a bunch that I select in the gallery view. Now yes, you can do this in PhotoNinja too (copy/paste manipulations), but it's very awkward and results in massive file sizes if you go through LR (since photoninja has no cataloging).
I would have no problems taking "the shot" and running it through photoninja, but I wouldn't want to do that with every shot that I don't want to delete, nor even every shot that I want to compare.
Upvote
0
No not really. What I was trying to say was that, in general Canon take a rather cautious approach. They prefer to release products that are totally reliable, even if they do not offer all the features that are available in competitor's products. For example when the 5D mark 3 came out there was some comment that it only offered a modest 22 megapixels when the Nikon D800 which was announced around about the same time had 36 megapixels. Canon responded by announcing the 5DS/5DR but I did feel that they were just playing catch up and that this product was not part of their overall strategy. Then my video friends tell me that the 4K implementation in the 5D mark 4 is as good as it could be. I rarely shoot video so it does not really matter to me, but I do feel that Canon simply wanted to announce a camera with 4K capability and did not really consider whether the 4K implementation would be usable. Again, although I understand very little about 4K video, I believe there are other products on the market that have a far better 4K implementation.neuroanatomist said:
Upvote
0
Ian_of_glos said:
So it seems it is not innovation you have an issue with but Canon's willingess to make the Swiss army knife of cameras.
It seems you don't remembe2 the time that Nikon lagged behind in MP and all the Nikon stalwarts saying 'you don't need more than 10/12/15MP (depending on what MP their cameras had at the time)?
Canon's decision to only use in their DSLRs sensors that they build is probably their limiting factor and if it was not that one, single factor, I am sure there this 'Canon don't innovate' bandwagon would not have built up over the last 2-3 years. Even then, the most common statement I have read is along the lines that 'Canon must build cameras with function X,Y and Z because they are the market leaders.' Really? Is that the sum total of marketing logic that can be mustered?
The fact is Canon have, in their sensors, pretty much closed the gap with the sensors but they have made more strides in non-DR related aspects of a camera - aspects that it seems people think are more important than 4K or DR.
As an example, in introducing DPAF (which many Sony videographers admit is a damned good focussing system for video), they have had to cut pretty much each pixel in half. Think about that for a minute, in the 5D4 a sensor with 30million half-sized pixels and, despite limitations of noise in a small pixel, match the Sony at ISO >200. That sounds like some pretty good sensor technology to me. Yet people still bang on about lack of innovation. Hmm.
Upvote
0
That should read - "the 4K implementation in the 5D mark 4 is not as good as it could be." My videographer friends tell me that the 4k in the Panasonic GH5 and Sony A7S ii is far better.Spock said:
As I said earlier, it doesn't really matter to me because I don't shoot video very often, and I have never used the 4k video in my 5D mark 4 (maybe I will try it one day). All I was trying to do was to respond to your point about looking for features that I personally want to use. I don't need or want 4K but I think it is generally recognised that the 4K implementation in the 5D mark 4 lags behind the competition.
Upvote
0
Ian_of_glos said:
Canon expressed a very logical reason for doing what they did - the majority of people who take video with a camera like the 5D4 will do so for short illustrative sequences and will not do a lot of editing of that video and will likely not have the computing capacity needed to edit 4k. So they chose to keep costs lower by majoring on 1080 and offering a 4k capacity with an older codec. And anyone who has the 5D4 says they like working with the 4k as it is and do not shoot long sequences.
I am guessing that having an opposite opinion about a function you admit you will never use will not change your opinion one jot, but I ask myself who would I rather believe - a company who does market research when planning its products or a videographer who wants to have a camera that takes great 4k and great stills and expect that, because 'Canon has the technology' doing so would not add anything to the price.
Upvote
0
Ian_of_glos said:
Unless you are recording RAW uncompressed frames (not cropped or resampled to 4K so that you can do post stabilization of footage), it will not be as good as it could be.....
hmmmmm........
That would be about 40MB per frame, and you want at least 60FPS, 120FPS would be better, so that's about 5GB per second... 12 seconds to fill that 64G card.... I wonder why they didn't go that route.....
Upvote
0
Spock said:
Or maybe Canon were not responding to the D800 at all but all marques were testing new technologies for high-MP sensors at pretty much the same time. It then comes down to luck as to who hits the chain of solutions for technical problems. I am also fairly sure that if Canon were number 2 or 3 in the market they would have released more experimental models just like SoNikon feel the need to.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Spock said:
Canon announced a prototype 50 MP APS-C sensor in 2007, five years before the launch of the D800 and 8 years prior to the 5Ds. Clearly, those high-level discussions of high megapixel sensors had been occurring at Canon for quite some time prior to Nikon's move.
Regardless, you're absolutely correct that there are no real secrets in industry.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
