Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]

[dgatwood]

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.

Not sure about resolution as it increases the difficulty in obtaining sharp images.

Not at all. If you take a photo at 80 MP, but the lens's focusing accuracy limits the effective resolution to 20MP, then you aren't getting any benefit out of the higher resolution, but the picture is still just as sharp as it would have been if you were shooting with a 20MP camera.

Yes, if you zoom in on the actual pixels on a photo taken, you get a fuzzier image, but that's only because you're looking at a portion of the image that is one-fourth as big. If you zoom out to a 2:1 view so that you're looking at the same-sized portion of the image, you'll see the same sharpness with the 80MP photo in a 2:1 view as you do with the 20MP photo in a 1:1 view.

Mind you, there's probably minimal benefit to bumping up the resolution of the full-frame sensors unless they bump up the lens resolution to match, but that's a separate issue.

 

[Orangutan]

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

What about composition and focus? A poorly composed or poorly focused shot with high DR goes in the bitbucket. However, a well composed and well focused image, with slightly less DR, can be outstanding.

 

[jrista]

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

And you do know that quite a number of photographers happily did away with color entirely, and explicitly chose a large grained, highly grainy film ON PURPOSE, for aesthetic reasons, right? You also know, then, that many digital photographers these days spend a lot of money trying to find, or a lot of time trying to perfect, one way or another of replicating film grain in their digital photos.

So sorry, but it is NOT all about the finest grain or the purest color reproduction. From an artistic standpoint, offset color and grain both have a long-standing place as a tool to improve aesthetic appeal.

That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days. As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.

 

[RLPhoto]

FTFY.

Thanks, but no thanks.

got it, OrangUtan ... from your apparent love for red ink and in-text corrections you must be an old-style school teacher by profession and a Canon fan-boy by vocation. Too bad I am not one of your students.

I therefore ask you politely to refrain from defacing my posts and twisting my words using bolded bi-color full text quotes. It is bad style and hurts my readers' eyes.

@ RLphoto: No, I won't ever show any of my images here. And not necessary ... since the shortcomings and limitations in Canon's sensor tech and subsequent image quality relative to better camera gear can be seen and studied in a large number of images readily available on the net.

It's one thing to moan about limitations and it's completely different to actually hit them. Quite frankly from your posts, I haven't seen you hit the limitations of a 3.1mp d30.

 

[unfocused]

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

What about composition and focus? A poorly composed or poorly focused shot with high DR goes in the bitbucket. However, a well composed and well focused image, with slightly less DR, can be outstanding.

Orangutan and Rienzphotoz, you just don't understand.

Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith...all those people and others...their pictures are great because of dynamic range.

It's a well-known fact that Robert Frank was the most influential photographer of the second half of the twentieth century because his images were always sharp, full of dynamic range, without visible grain and perfectly in focus. Oh...wait...they weren't any of those things. You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

 

[jrista]

I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo.

NSS! We all knew that already.

Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.

Hmm, interesting. If photographers only care about the images their gear produces...then, that must mean that Canon produces IQ that is more than sufficient for the majority of photographers...who, as statistics would have it, use Canon gear...right?

Today's situation is simple and clear:

• Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts.
• D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.
• D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash.
• And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

And, how well...exactly...have the D800 and A7r, or D600 or D300 or D7100 sold, in comparison to the 5D III, 1D X, 1D IV, 5D II, 7D, etc. from Canon? Again, given the facts, Canon cameras sell significantly better. Canon cameras maintain the top slots in best seller lists around the world. Canon cameras are ubiquitous and endemic at sports and the Olympics, by orders of magnitude above any other brand. Canon cameras dominate wedding photography. Canon cameras are the most seen camera brand on back country trails where landscape photographers dominate. Canon sells, Canon is extremely successful, and some of the best photos in the world are made with Canon equipment, printed on Canon printers.

So...how well has this improved DR improved SoNikon's market position? Seems to me it hasn't really done much of anything. Nikon is still in decline (something, to be quite frank, I do NOT want to see...a competitive marketplace is essential for the consumer, and if Nikon continues to fail, it will disappear....go the way of Kodak, or be absorbed by a larger entity like Sony...either way, fewer competitors is BAD...and I don't want that to happen.) Sony, while their sensors power half the known market of digital photography devices, has yet to demonstrate it can make a good camera.

I believe Sony and Nikon are making the fatal mistake individuals like yourself seem to demand they make: Cater to every customer whim, rather than be a successful business. Sony's electronics division hasn't been a successful business for over a decade...it's hemorrhaged money for over a decade. Nikon has compelling products, but they can't seem to turn them into products that sell well enough for their business to succeed. It may be that Nikon invests too much money on R&D, and not enough money on manufacture, on their supply chain, on optimizing the efficiency of their manufacturing pipeline, etc. Whatever it is, neither company is successful, at the moment, as a business. Businesses make money, in the form of revenues, that then fuel further PRODUCTION, and if you have revenues left over, R&D. Canon excels at business. Their manufacturing pipeline is ideal. Their supply chain is usually stuffed. They, too, have compelling products, and they too continue to research new products and technology....they just do the whole business thing from top to bottom better.

I honestly have no worries that Canon will fail. On the contrary, I worry what will happen to Canon if their competition dries up because their competition listens to the whims of their bitchy customers too much, and fails at the business side of things. What would we have if Canon became a default monopoly? They are good at business...which is their strength....which means innovation would slow to a crawl as their business continued to thrive. IMO, Nikon and Sony need to get their shit together, and beef up their businesses, instead of spending tens of billions of dollars inventing new technology that may or may not be compelling enough to sell while their businesses bleed out.

Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible. Or leapfrog Sony/Nikon ... if they are able to. Canon should not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), since this is a high risk strategy. After all, to most photographers, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device.

Yeah, Canon's sensors lag behind. But their cameras are second to none. Image quality is not 100% dependent upon the sensor. If we take a very naive approach to determining what percentage each body factor affect IQ, we could simply divide it all up evenly: Sensor, AF System, Meter, Frame Rate. Four things, so each thing, in a naive distribution, has a 25% effect on IQ. Problem is, the sensor simply records whatever is projected on it. DR doesn't matter for squat if your image is focused incorrectly, metered wrong such that highlights are clipped, or doesn't include the best moment of action. As such, the sensor, in my opinion, should really have one of the lowest IQ factor ratings. I would say the meter is probably similar, again it is just a sensor and a little bit of logic to determine exposure. That makes AF and Frame Rate the two most important factors in IQ. Again, if you don't focus your subject, then frame rate doesn't matter...you'll get a string of missfocused frames that, even if they have gobs of DR and are perfectly metered, still go strait into the trash. That makes AF the most important factor in IQ. So, if we divvy it up more appropriately, we might get something like 50% AF, 25% Frame Rate, 13% Meter, and 12% Sensor.

It's no wonder Canon hasn't put so much effort into their sensors lately. They already have a damn good sensor. Their AF systems consistently performed BELOW the bar before...particularly the 5D II and 1D III cameras. Their metering systems were lagging, either being simply monochrome, or basic two-color rather than full RGB. Their Frame Rates were always good, but now they are even better. Canon, in the last round of body releases, improved their worst-performing components that primarily affect IQ. The 1D X received a new high resolution, full RGB metering sensor combined with a dedicated DIGIC4 chip. The 1D X and 5D III both received a new record-breaking 61pt/41pt c/t reticular AF system with multiple double cross-type AF points and highly configurable zone selection. The new 61pt AF system has the widest frame spread of any FF AF system. The new 1D X meter and it's AF system are wired together, allowing the high resolution meter to identify subjects, which is then fed into the AF system to improve tracking. These were the low hanging fruit, and the most requested improvements (alongside better high ISO performance) from Canon's customers.

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.

Should it? Really? I'm sure the 1Ds X (or whatever name Canon ends up releasing the Big MP camera under) will have a higher resolution sensor, as that camera is explicitly designed for studio work, where resolution is critically important (however not more important than the AF system.) As for the 5D IV, if that is indeed what Canon is working on, why MUST it have a "significantly" higher resolution? Does that really fit with that bodies primary customers usage scenarios? The 5D III is a wedding camera, first and foremost. Like the 5D II and 5D before it, wedding photographers live and die by the 5D line (every wedding photographer I've ever met or known has used something from the 5D line, with the exception of one, who used a D3 and occasionally a D800). When it comes to which camera is most used and most loved by wedding photographers, the 5D III wins hands down. The D800, while used by some wedding photographers, is frequently talked about as being too much, being too slow with its huge RAW files, those RAW files being too hefty to process quickly, etc. The D800 is NOT an ideal wedding photographers camera. The 5D III, however, is...and its most loved feature? The sensor? Nope. The AF system!

Personally, I expect the 5D IV to get a modest boost in sensor resolution, along with the elimination of read noise (reduced from the 30e- or more that current Canon cameras have to the 3e- or less that is necessary for DR to improve to 14 stops) and a boost to low ISO DR. Too much more resolution and they take the 5D line out of its ideal positioning as the worlds best general-purpose FF DSLR, where as more DR is better for everyone. I don't suspect we'll see the shift to 16bit color with the next 5D...instead, if Canon does make that shift, I suspect it will be in the 1Ds X...so I wouldn't hope for more than 14 stops of DR in the next 5D either.

 

[privatebydesign]

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

Well we didn't have an iso button for a start, then we might be shooting for slides (I have never gotten over the loss of slides printed via Cibachrome), negatives, or B&W, so that takes care of 12 or so emulsions, then the different manufacturers each had patents on their particular brews, so multiply that by three or four, for 36-48 emulsions as a basic.

Then and only then, do you get down to colour differences, I suspect you have never printed with a colour enlarger onto colour paper, if you had you would know the intrinsic limitations of global CMYK adjustments. Ever wonder why the number of emulsions available dropped dramatically long before digital cameras became cost effective? It was because scanning beat them to the party, once we could scan a colour negative we could print it B&W (on native high quality B&W paper), colour, on Cibachrome via Lightjets etc etc. A semi skilled operator can partially correct colour, do global adjustments, dodge and burn all very quickly at a computer, compare that to a skilled printers abilities in a darkroom. Heck most printing machines could do their own auto colour corrects automatically, I used to pay an extra 30cents to get each of my wedding proofs hand (human) graded and adjusted, how fast do you think the techs had to do that.

Different emulsions gave different colour responses, all of them are comparatively easily replicated in a digital post process if you have the RAW data to a remarkably discerning eye.

Hah, ever count sprocket holes in a partially exposed roll of film in a light tight bag so you could use the rest of it? If you haven't, forget your film references.

 

[jrista]

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

What about composition and focus? A poorly composed or poorly focused shot with high DR goes in the bitbucket. However, a well composed and well focused image, with slightly less DR, can be outstanding.

Orangutan and Rienzphotoz, you just don't understand.

Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith...all those people and others...their pictures are great because of dynamic range.

It's a well-known fact that Robert Frank was the most influential photographer of the second half of the twentieth century because his images were always sharp, full of dynamic range, without visible grain and perfectly in focus. Oh...wait...they weren't any of those things. You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

+100!

 

[100]

Now if you're willing to change to a completely incompatible card format like CFast ...

So you never heard of CFast 2.0 ...

Heard of? The entire last paragraph was about CFast. Calling CFast CompactFlash is roughly equivalent to calling SATA IDE. CFast is not compatible with existing CF cards or readers, which makes it a relatively expensive standard for users to adopt, because no low-end CFast cards exist, as far as I can tell.

Worse, in spite of that added expense, the critical write performance is not that much better than SD, at 350/450 MB/s versus 240/260 MB/s for SD. And the SD standard currently supports up to 316 MB/s data rates (without further tweaks), but nobody is bothering to build parts at those speeds because little to no camera hardware would be capable of actually pushing that much data yet.

Further, even if the cameras had chipsets that could push that much data, the number of users who would benefit from >12 fps continuous RAW shooting is dwarfed by the number of users who would benefit from the comfort of having a backup of every photo.

Like I said, I'd expect to maybe see CFast in 4K cameras for supporting RAW. I don't see any obvious benefit to adopting it in still cameras until they get fast enough that the cards are in danger of becoming the main bottleneck. Right now, the SD cards are fast enough to handle 12-14 RAW files per second at 20-odd megapixels in continuous shooting mode without any buffering at all. That's more data than any DSLR actually supports, AFAIK. There's no benefit to building faster cards until there's a camera that actually has to buffer data at those rates.

Cfast (2008) and Cfast 2.0 (2012) are not the same thing. CFast 2.0 support speeds up to 600MB/s
You’re quoting out of context by the way. You also wrote: "I honestly don't expect CFast to catch on except perhaps in 4K cinema cameras, and probably not even then"

I quoted Masaya Maeda, the managing director and chief executive of image communication product operations at Canon who said, "With extremely fast performance, CFast 2.0 memory cards will enable us to develop next-generation cameras with more powerful features, enabling future 4K Ultra HD video recording capability.

If Canon (the market leader) say they will adopt the CFast 2.0 technology your expectations that it won't catch on don’t make much sense to me. Unless you hadn’t heard about Cfast 2.0 and Canon’s position towards it.
Nikon put a XQD Card (up to 500MB/s) in de D4, also not backward compatible with “old” CompactFlash (and with “new” CFast cards for that matter) and Sony (who developed XQD with SanDisk and Nikon) said they’ll make their Broadcast Camcorders XQD compatible.
Combined Canon, Nikon and Sony have over 80% market share and they all seem to be committed to the next gen CF.

I don’t see the fact that Cfast is not compatible with CF as a problem. Little over 10 years ago I bought a Canon Powershot G2 with a 32MB CF-card. I still have both the camera and the card but never use them anymore. If I put it in my 5DIII I could put one (sic) raw file on that card.
I’ve got a box filled with “old” CF cards that will fit all my gear and are in perfect working order, but what good are they if they lack capacity and/or speed? I also got old card readers USB 1, USB 1.1, USB 2…
I update cards and card readers anyway so another format in a new camera is no big deal. Is that just me? I highly doubt it.

You say there's no benefit to building faster cards until there's a camera that actually has to buffer data at those rates.
You could also reverse that, what's the benefit of building a faster camera if memory cards can’t keep up with it?
The answer to the “problem” is quite simple. Collaboration between camera companies and memory card builders. That's why the Nikon D4 got XQD and the new generation Canon (pro) camera’s will have CFast 2.0 memory cards.

 

[eml58]

You say there's no benefit to building faster cards until there's a camera that actually has to buffer data at those rates.
You could also reverse that, what's the benefit of building a faster camera if memory cards can’t keep up with it?
The answer to the “problem” is quite simple. Collaboration between camera companies and memory card builders. That's why the Nikon D4 got XQD and the new generation Canon (pro) camera’s will have CFast 2.0 memory cards.

I honestly don't think one can argue this logic, CFast 2 is the future, I actually looked to see if I could use them in my 1Dx, unfortunately not, so perhaps the new High MP Canon will have this tech built in, I hope so. Only downside at all to the Tech is initial cost for the Cards, which will come down as companies implement the tech into their products.

Nikon took a leap of faith with the D4 and XQD, I honestly don't think any prospective buyers of this Camera didn't buy because of the XQD Card system, my Lad uses these Cards in his Sony XDCAM HD422 they work wonderfully well from what I can see, expensive ?? Yes, but as most things in life, you tend to get what you pay for, mostly.

 

[Loswr]

That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.

And you know this because...?

As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.

And you know this because...?

Because of a basic understanding of digital imaging and camera technology. I haven't ever seen jrista mistake a lens for a camera, as you've done, nor refuse to admit he was wrong about it, as you've also done.

Do you want to know how I know that? :

 

[Orangutan]

This is getting rather petty. (so what's new?)

To summarize:

• I think everyone agrees that more DR is better in at least some circumstances
• More DR does not make a bad photo good, nor is it impossible to make good images with slightly less DR
• The importance of DR depends on the individual photographer's style, vision and subject matter.
• None of us on this forum, neither as individuals nor as a group, are in a position to say definitively what demand actually exists for greater DR. Those on the so-called Canon fanboi side (myself apparently included) seem to believe that Canon's sales numbers give strong basis for inference on that question.

PS to dilbert: I believe the Zone System has 11 zones, corresponding to 11 stops of DR.

Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U? ("U" is for unicorn)

 

[privatebydesign]

I think you forgot to include Ansel Adams? You know, the guy that invented the zone based metering system?

The Zone System is not a "zone based metering system" it is a system of prioritising the import part of a scenes dynamic range before exposure to maximise that tonal areas reproduction in a subsequent print. Printing is the be all and end all of Adams' system, how best to expose the scene within the DR limitations of the camera system to achieve what he foresees in a print.

Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.

 

[jrista]

Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U? ("U" is for unicorn)

Doh! Now you've done it! "Unicorn." It'll be a mythological creature forever.

 

[jrista]

That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.

And you know this because...?

As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.

And you know this because...?

I know it because I've studied the subject. It's a bit of a hobby (a very time consuming one...)

It is also common sense. If color wasn't primarily a mathematical thing, then why is it that the 5D III photographs I see from the world's best...landscape photographers, portrait photographers, macro photographers, etc....have color that is just as good as any photo from the D800? Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output.

I think unfocused put it best:

You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

The quality of a photograph, assuming it was captured properly, has everything to do with the photographer. Artistic vision is what makes a good photograph good.

Cameras are simply about enabling the photographer to capture photos well. It doesn't matter how good a camera you have, or how good it's native color reproduction...if the photographer has no vision, they will never make visionary photographs...

I know a lot about the technical aspects of photography. They matter, because that knowledge helps me choose the tool that will best service my skill to realize my artistic vision. That said, the thing I care about most, more than the technology, is: How do my photographs look?

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself.

And you know this because...?

So, how do I know? Well, common sense, really. An eye for the obvious.

 

[Orangutan]

Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U? ("U" is for unicorn)

Doh! Now you've done it! "Unicorn." It'll be a mythological creature forever.

It's bad luck to be superstitious!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

What about composition and focus? A poorly composed or poorly focused shot with high DR goes in the bitbucket. However, a well composed and well focused image, with slightly less DR, can be outstanding.

Orangutan and Rienzphotoz, you just don't understand.

Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith...all those people and others...their pictures are great because of dynamic range.

It's a well-known fact that Robert Frank was the most influential photographer of the second half of the twentieth century because his images were always sharp, full of dynamic range, without visible grain and perfectly in focus. Oh...wait...they weren't any of those things. You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

I see the error of my ways ;D ... one must have a new Sony sensor with DR of mythical proportions to make good images ... wait I tried that, but the bloody camera did not have lenses that I wanted ... but I suppose the Sony sensor does not need any lenses as it can take photos even if I put nothing in front coz its the God of all things photography. ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Today's situation is simple and clear:

• Currently Canon 5DIII and 1D X have better AF than any Nikon or Sony camera.

Actually I still quite a bit of open debate on this.

• 5DIII has a faster frame rate than D800/E + A7R, 1D X has a faster frame rate than D4. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.

It can be, unlike more DR which is of course useful only a vanishingly smaller percentage of the time than 14fps are over 12fps.

• Above ISO 1600, settings which are commonly used by many photographers, D800/E + A7R + D4 have no DR advantange over 5DIII + 1D X.

Yes, although actually the D4 has better DR at ALL ISOs than the 5D3, and of course ISO1600+ is commonly used by photographers unlike ISO100-400 which are used only for a ******vanishingly****** small percentage of photos.

• Generally speaking, Canon has better lenses where there are equivalent options, and more unique lens offerings than Nikon.

agreed

Nikon and Sony have been lagging behind Canon in market share for years, and have been trying to do everything they can to close the gap…but they've failed.

Yes and this is critically important because THE single most important thing to help the photographer out in the field get the shot they want is to be using only each piece of equipment that has the largest market share.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

wait there is no such forum coz DR in sensors holds no value for those who really know how to work DR with proper lighting and diffusion.

and there he goes again

and you wonder where the DR crowd gets the mad, simply mad idea, that the fanboys ever say such things about more DR is useless or is only needed by incompetents

BTW, please come to my next shoot and make sure to bring enough lights to light up a few square miles and enough helpers to do it all instantly at the snap of a finger and oh make sure they do it in a way that looks natural and that none of their equipment shows up in the shot. And make sure you are always there at a snap, whenever needed.