Which grass is considered greener (do nikonians complain as much as canonians)?

[sarangiman]

let's say for the sake of argument that Sony sensors really are better at this point in time (a judgment that is highly subjective and very suspect, since it hinges on tiny, tiny differences in just one subset of a sensor's overall performance

There's nothing 'highly subjective' here at all. It's a quantifiable, demonstrable fact. And it's not a tiny difference in just one aspect of overall performance. Low downstream read noise not only increases base ISO dynamic range, but can allow you to maintain high dynamic range at all ISOs if you know how to take advantage of 'ISO-less' sensors.

Furthermore, to think that Canon shouldn't be interested in dynamic range performance of their sensors is pretty short-sighted. Canon's trying to make a dent in the motion picture industry, and what's arguably the one thing expert cinematographers constantly go on about?

DR, DR, and more DR. Straight from the horse's mouth (Emmanuel Lubezki, DP on 'Gravity', 'The Tree of Life', etc.).

 

[docsmith]

What? No more? I just made a fresh batch of popcorn.... ;D

I can't say I see the low light/dark area sensors as being that disruptive to the "high end" dSLR market. Simply put, what Canon is providing is already truly excellent for the vast majority of uses. Will Canon lose specific niches, sure. As an example, I shoot a little of everything. The only time I see the issues being discuss is in my nightscapes. Which is <1% of what I shoot. I see the dSLR market at a point of diminishing returns. For years there was rapid improvements from one generation to the next. I expect that to slow now.

That said, I don't think Canon's problem is Sony/Nikon/etc. Their problem is their top 2 dSLRs are approaching 3 yrs old that will need updating if for no other reason than people like new releases (think car models), Canon needs to update the 5D and 1D series in 2015 or 2016. A good part of the market for the 5DIV is going to come from those that want to upgrade from the 5DIII. I think a big part of that will be the improved sensor tech. Granted, they'll need to frame it to sell to the masses (I can also see a few more MP, DPAF or better, and a few more FPS). In other words, it is Canon's problem to make us want to buy more gear. I expect them to figure something out.

BTW...lytro or some more advanced take...that could become a disruptive technology.

 

[Loswr]

To me, the DSLR market that matters, when discussing the topic of image quality, is the market that caters to the group of buyers (a "market") that CARES about image quality. I KNOW that you already know 90% of the people who buy a Rebel don't really give a crap about IQ. The majority of them will never use any lens other than the 18-55mm kit lens. Why would I bother debating about IQ in the context of all DSLR purchasers everywhere, which is probably over 90% of the DSLR market in total (for all manufacturers)? I figure the context is implied,

Context, man. Sheesh.

The context you established was that of corporate failure due to lack of willingness/ability to change in the face of paradigm-shifting technology. You cited examples of companies that have fallen victim to that effect. You used examples like mobile phones, tablets, DVD rentals, and cable television...all of which are mass-market products intended for a wide audience of consumers, not a narrow specialized market within a much larger market.

Now, you're suggesting I should have understood that you weren't talking about the portion of the market that makes up 'probably over 90% of the DSLR market' when implying corporate failure for Canon? You stated that in 3-5 years, "I think the dominant camera manufacturer landscape could look quite different."

But...you were only talking about professional dSLRs. So, you talked of corporate failure and dominant camera makers changing, and your 'paradigm-shifting technology' is the sensor used in professional dSLRs. In other words, you implied that if Canon releases a 7DII, 5DIV, and 1D X II with similar noise and DR characteristics to the current versions, Canon will go the way of Nokia's mobile phone division (sold off) or Blockbuster (bankruptcy).

I know, you'd prefer I believe you were talking about high end gear because that's what you usually talk about. If I believe that, then the corollary is when you implied corporate failure for Canon because of sensor technology, you were making what can only be viewed as an argument so fallacious it's silly.

Alternatively, when you spoke of corporate failure, you really were talking about the whole dSLR market, and when called on the unlikelihood of 'sensor IQ' as a fundamental driver for that broad market, you backpedaled.

Either way, you initially framed the context of the debate at the corporate/industry/market level, and you lost that debate through a fallacious argument or dramatically altering the context after the fact...take your pick.

As for your replacement context (sensor technology being paradigm shifting for the much smaller 'professional' dSLR market), I believe you're wrong there, too. The sensor is one part of the camera – an important part to be sure, but just one part of the whole. The camera is just one part of the whole system, arguably not the most important part (and generally not the one kept the longest).

The antenna is an important part of a mobile phone, it determines signal strength, call clarity, data transmission throughput. Would improved antenna sensitivity be paradigm shifting for the mobile phone industry? No. Particularly when the majority of customers live in urban areas with a high density of transmission towers...the antenna in its current form provides ample sensitivity for that majority. Likewise, Canon sensors provide image quality that meets the needs of the majority of the professional dSLR market. Sensor technology is a part of a part of the whole. When considered as part of that larger ecosystem, and when it's already capable of delivering excellent images with the current level of Canon technology, sensor technology is not going to be shifting paradigms any time soon.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

jrista: I wouldn't bother. You're not going to convince someone that sensor performance matters if that person - no matter how smart he is - appears to not have a single photograph taken in challenging light (in his shared collection anyway).

That, right there, is a lot of nonsense.

Speaking for myself I shoot in "challenging" light about 80-90% of the time (I live on the North East of England - a place about which the phrase "like living inside of a Tupperware box" could have been coined), and I also shot gigs, when I'm not shooting birds, wildlife and sport in routinely Godawful light.

And I have have problem whatsoever getting excellent quality results from my Canon files.

I've said it before: knowing what to do with the files once they're off the camera is at least as important as what happens in the camera, and Jon is far from being an examplar of the part of the process that starts after the images have left the camera.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

I think you're right. But I can't help but feel that the topic of photography gets a lot of tongues wagging in ways you seldom see in the other arts. Not that folks in the other arts can't be just as passionate about what they do. It sometimes seems odd to me that in photography so many folks concentrate on the equipment and technologies when they could be out making great images and expressing themselves through their art.

Now, having said that, yes, I grew up during the years of the Muscle Car Wars out of Detroit. I remember quite well how people would argue over this and that and the other thing. I was young and stupid and bought a '64 Jag E-Type FHC. It had less than 190bmp in the real world, but it STOMPED most of the Big Iron.

A friend says that talking about cameras is just like talking Hot Rods. So I think you're on to something there.

Having been an engineer with software, electrical, and optical fields of science required to do the job, it's amazing what some people on these kinds of forums feel is important and what they miss.

As for changing how folks behave, even if someone died tomorrow and left me in charge I'd never think of it. It can be so entertaining at times.

A prime example of this to me is Annie Leibovitz. She doesn't concern herself with the technologies and which system might be slightly better or different than another. No, she has other things on her mind. I'm not sure how she's doing these days, but there was a time when she'd take anything free that was handed to her (Canon, Nikon, Hassleblad, etc). She turned out salable images no matter which manufacture wanted her name associated with their brand.

You can drive to work with a 10 year old car.
In most cases you will not even arrive faster with a new car...

Still people want and buy new Cars.
They talk for hours on car forums about 5 or 10 PS more and 0-100km/h acceleration...

People are that way and you will not change it!

 

[Maiaibing]

It sometimes seems odd to me that in photography so many folks concentrate on the equipment and technologies when they could be out making great images and expressing themselves through their art.

I get your point, but people are actually taking far more pictures with their DSLRs than ever before.

When I shot film I maxed out at around 5.000 pic/year. This year I'm averaging 100 pic/day - and I'm sure many others are clocking even higher numbers.

Meanwhile, the internet allows us to use our spare moments to express our wishes and hopes for the next big thing...

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Good point. I like it.

... Meanwhile, the internet allows us to use our spare moments to express our wishes and hopes for the next big thing...

 

[Sporgon]

I've said it before: knowing what to do with the files once they're off the camera is at least as important as what happens in the camera, and Jon is far from being an examplar of the part of the process that starts after the images have left the camera.

How can you even make a statement like that? You don't even know me, you've never seen how I process my files...

Well that's not quite true. You showed your individual frames that you then merged into an 'HDR' which demonstrated basic mistakes. I think Keith's remark is relevant.

No one is denying that there are not more technically advanced sensors than the ones Canon are using. The argument is in how far this 'older tech' really effects the final image, given all the processing options that are available.

 

[jdramirez]

That said, I don't think Canon's problem is Sony/Nikon/etc. Their problem is their top 2 dSLRs are approaching 3 yrs old that will need updating if for no other reason than people like new releases (think car models), Canon needs to update the 5D and 1D series in 2015 or 2016. A good part of the market for the 5DIV is going to come from those that want to upgrade from the 5DIII. I think a big part of that will be the improved sensor tech. Granted, they'll need to frame it to sell to the masses (I can also see a few more MP, DPAF or better, and a few more FPS). In other words, it is Canon's problem to make us want to buy more gear. I expect them to figure something out.

BTW...lytro or some more advanced take...that could become a disruptive technology.

Nope. The mkiii is a thing of beauty. The mkii had auto focus issues up the wazoo... but the mkiii has few critics... so those who want full frame but don't want to buy right before the next gen come out are the bulk of buyers for the mkiv.

I could be wrong, but I still love my mkiii and I think many agree.

 

[Lawliet]

The argument is in how far this 'older tech' really effects the final image, given all the processing options that are available.

Even with the processing available: it takes time, and time is money(or at least not spent with something more delectable). Thats if the NR artefacts areaccaptable.

 

[Loswr]

I think confirmation bias really runs rampant in some of these threads. My favorite was a previous comment by someone that basically tried to say that since Canon is still leading the market, DxO's image science must be wrong. Yes, let's correlate two entirely uncorrelated things.

Well, I hope you aren't referring to me. If you are, your memory is faulty and you've conflated two separate concepts. So, just in case, I'll repeat my earlier comments along those lines, which are just as valid as when I first made them.

DxO has scored Canon sensors lower than their competitors for several years, during which time Canon did not lose, but rather gained market share. Therefore, as far as influencing the aggregate buying decisions of consumers, DxO's Scores are meaningless.

As for DxO's 'image science', hallmarks of good science include transparency about methods with disclosure sufficient for someone skilled in the field to fully reproduce the experiment/test, and attempting to avoid bias. DxO does not disclose their formulae or weightings for determining their Scores, and what they do disclose of their methods shows that their scores have intentional bias. That's bad science. Note that their Measurements are generally well done and useful, although they've made some whopping errors on lens tests (and displayed more bad science with the Canon 70-200 II, first defending their erroneous conclusions, then later surreptitiously modifying the original data without ever acknowledging their mistake).

So, if you were referring to me, it's you who conflated two independent concepts which I discussed.

Heh, yeah. Neuro is in full "attach the messenger" mode, there probably isn't any getting through to him.

I'm sorry that having your arguments logically refuted and being called on backpedaling makes you feel like you're on the defensive.

 

[Loswr]

We clearly differ on what we believe is possible, might as well just agree to disagree.

Oh, almost anything is possible, so it's certainly possible that Canon will be affected negatively by not having the best sensors. It's just not very likely, IMO. They've been 'behind' for years with no deleterious effects. Sure, it's easier to lift shadows with Exmor. That's great...if lifting shadows by several stops is part if your routine workflow. I think you're dramatically overestimating the number of photographers for whom that's true, falling into the classic trap of assuming your needs are those of the majority. As a working pro stated earlier, shadows are important for the art...and shadows are supposed to be dark.

If those using professional dSLRs were so dissatisfied, they'd have switched. I know I'd have switched if Canon wasn't meeting my needs, in general, and another brand would meet them.

In the minority market segment you've chosen to focus on, the 5DII and 5DIII are immensely popular, more so than their Nikon counterparts, and Sony can't even come close. Those Canon bodies, along with an excellent full system, are getting the job done for a significant number of consumers. It's unfortunate that you are disappointed with your 5DIII, but then you stated you were disappointed with (what you read about) the 5DII as well, and that was quite likely the most popular professional dSLR ever (to date).

Paradigm shifts can result from technological advancement, but what drives them is meeting an unmet consumer need. Convenient and immediate access to the Internet...anywhere. Not having to go to the video store – twice! – to rent a movie. In the case of sensor technology, I think you're really overestimating the impact of advancements on the day-to-day of a majority of professional dSLR users...and without that widespread impact, there's no paradigm shift.

As you say...we can agree to disagree. Check back in a few years to see who's right.

 

[LostBoyNZ]

I'm thinking of shifting the Sony A7r myself, from the 5D Mark II. As for other brand owners complaining less or not, in my experience they all complain equally. Sony forums have lots of complaints about lenses being too over priced, lack of f2.8 zooms on E mount, that they feel Sony has abandoned A mount and even debated how good the A7s actually is in terms of ISO noise.

I'm not sure what Nikon people complain about, but I'm sure it's something.

I'm quite happy with my 5D Mark II for landscape, although I'd love more dynamic range and less pattern noise. But it still does the job well. The A7r gives me more dynamic range and nicely handled noise. But there's drawbacks too. No camera is perfect, so I think we'll always wish for more and complain about things, but in the end the 'best' brand for certain things always changes anyways. For ISO it was Canon, then Nikon, now Sony. Give it another couple of years and it'll be someone again or someone else.

 

[Sporgon]

Just to be clear, I am only disappointed with the 5D III for landscapes and low ISO work.

Here's a link to a guy who's a hot topic on 500px at the moment, that CR members may enjoy seeing. Does he shoot D800 ? Does he shoot high ISO ?

http://500px.com/JakeOlsonStudios

The only noise comes from people complimenting his work.

 

[V8Beast]

Just to be clear, I am only disappointed with the 5D III for landscapes and low ISO work.

Here's a link to a guy who's a hot topic on 500px at the moment, that CR members may enjoy seeing. Does he shoot D800 ? Does he shoot high ISO ?

http://500px.com/JakeOlsonStudios

The only noise comes from people complimenting his work.

When I see images like that, I think "Wow, that's one talented MFer."

"I wonder what gear he shoots with" is the last thing on my mind. I suppose that makes me a freak

 

[sdsr]

I'm thinking of shifting the Sony A7r myself, from the 5D Mark II.

...

I'm quite happy with my 5D Mark II for landscape, although I'd love more dynamic range and less pattern noise. But it still does the job well. The A7r gives me more dynamic range and nicely handled noise. But there's drawbacks too. No camera is perfect, so I think we'll always wish for more and complain about things, but in the end the 'best' brand for certain things always changes anyways. For ISO it was Canon, then Nikon, now Sony. Give it another couple of years and it'll be someone again or someone else.

At least, unlike switching to Nikon, switching to or adding an A7r will allow you to use all your Canon lenses (unless you insist on/want/prefer fast AF) which, in my experience, seem to make images that look at least as good as they do on Canon bodies. For me, that's part of the appeal of good mirrorless bodies - leaving aside (fast) AF, you can use just about any lens you want.

That said, out of curiosity - how often do you find yourself wanting more DR and/or better low ISO noise performance?

 

[sdsr]

The questioning and complaints, I feel, come from people who are, for the most part, intelligent and interested in the technologies and see what they believe to be big differences in Banner Specs. An example of this to me is the recent back and forth on these forums about Sony's 36 and (rumored) 50mpixel sensors. The Banner Specs look impressive. In the details, well, it depends on who you are as to whether a system is really better than what you own or not. If Sony's A7 series is any example, who here would put up with a 1.2FPS? Who would tolerate terrible AF performance in lower (not even low) light conditions? Who here would be happy with the current Sony E-mount lens situation?

The folks who are publicly upset (in on-line forums where anonymity can be easy cover) may have other things going on in their lives that lead them to spout off in perhaps inappropriate, ill-informed, ways (see an article on Mary Beard in a recent New Yorker Magazine for how she deals with trolls for an glimpse of what I'm trying to say here).

That sounds about right. As for the Sony A7 line, it may have some interest for a few here (I happily concede that this is almost certainly a tiny niche) to the extent that it can provide an engaging/useful supplement to Canon bodies. Some of us (I doubt I'm the only one, at any rate) only use single shot and thus don't care about fps, and the limited range of FE lenses (the two primes, esp. the 55mm, are marvelous) doesn't matter, unless (fast) AF does, since you can easily use your Canon lenses as well as just about any other lens that takes your fancy (MF is easy on these bodies).

As for the various Canon Must Do X To Its Sensors To Survive discussions/assertions, does anyone out there have actual knowledge of the relevant market shift(s), if any? We all know that Canon outsells everyone else overall, that dslr sales are down, that mirrorless remains a minority segment, that cellphones are a significant threat to the point-and-shoot market, etc., but do we know - say - how many high-end users have switched from Canon to Nikon or Sony (or vice versa) on account of their sensors (or for any other reason, for that matter)? Do we know how many people care enough about details of sensor performance to contemplate switching? I suspect we don't, in which case....

 

[sdsr]

let's say for the sake of argument that Sony sensors really are better at this point in time (a judgment that is highly subjective and very suspect, since it hinges on tiny, tiny differences in just one subset of a sensor's overall performance

There's nothing 'highly subjective' here at all. It's a quantifiable, demonstrable fact. And it's not a tiny difference in just one aspect of overall performance. Low downstream read noise not only increases base ISO dynamic range, but can allow you to maintain high dynamic range at all ISOs if you know how to take advantage of 'ISO-less' sensors.

It may be demonstrably true that Sony sensors (plus whosever are in Nikon's APS-C cameras?) are measurably superior in various ways, but it's not demonstrably true that the differences aren't "tiny" - that's where the "subjective" part that unfocused was (presumably) referring to comes in. Depending on what you shoot, in what sort of conditions, how you process the image files, how you view/present the results, and the standards you/the viewer apply/ies throughout all of this, the differences may be imperceptible, or noticeable but irrelevant, or significant, etc. So it could well be that the differences among cameras are all at the margins, margins so small that there aren't enough users out there to significantly affect the market. For everyone else, there's no "better" in any way that matters.

 

[EchoLocation]

i think one reason why lots of people hang out here who don't actively shoot nikon gear is that this is the best rumor forum on the internet.
I open Nikonrumors and Sonyalpharumors just as often as I open Canonrumors, but on those sites I usually just read some comments and don't get involved.
Canonrumors has the best forum for discussion regarding rumors that I have found.

 

[sarangiman]

So, if you were referring to me, it's you who conflated two independent concepts which I discussed.

I wasn't referring to you. The particular comment I was referring to was as follows:

Besides, DxO mark isn't relevant. Despite them scoring Nikon/Sony higher and higher against Canon product head to head, Canon still went from a 4% market share lead 4 years ago to a now 20% market share lead. Nobody cares or nobody believes because of just that: The garbage "science" they are doing.

Now that's garbage. This person clearly correlated the two, saying that nobody believes DxO's 'garbage science' because despite DxO's measurements, Canon's lead strengthened. DxO's raw measurements are perfectly fine, but they have - as you yourself say - little to no bearing on aggregate purchasing decisions (nor vice versa), and so correlating the two is utter nonsense.

DxO has scored Canon sensors lower than their competitors for several years, during which time Canon did not lose, but rather gained market share. Therefore, as far as influencing the aggregate buying decisions of consumers, DxO's Scores are meaningless.

I don't disagree, as long as you have your qualifier in there. Anyway, who here was trying to suggest DxO scores influence the aggregate buying decisions of consumers? What their sensor *measurements* do do, OTOH, is inform a savvy consumer which camera will perform well in terms of image quality for landscapes (DR and SNR data), or light-limited applications (SNR data). Years ago it certainly turned me towards which cameras I could turn to for my landscape work, and I appreciate that they provide that data. Their data also allows one to look for interesting trends in technologies (which sensorgen also helps to distill, from DxO data). While we're on the subject -- what they're trying to do with P-MPix is quite clever, I think - currently it's so daunting to figure out what you can expect from different lenses across different systems of different sensor sizes, etc. That said, lens data will only be rigorously valuable once many copies are tested (so as to not run into issues like the 70-200 fiasco that keeps being brought up over and over again to beat DxO over the head with).

As for DxO's 'image science', hallmarks of good science include transparency about methods with disclosure sufficient for someone skilled in the field to fully reproduce the experiment/test, and attempting to avoid bias. DxO does not disclose their formulae or weightings for determining their Scores, and what they do disclose of their methods shows that their scores have intentional bias.

I don't disagree with the bit about disclosing methods, being a scientist myself. You saying they have 'intentional bias' requires more proof than your simple claim, though. Bias towards what? Any formula has inherent bias, as any weighting system must. It's when people imply that there's a brand-specific bias that I take issue. I'm not saying that's what you're implying, but there are certainly those who imply it.

You could argue that they weight base ISO DR too much, and if you don't care about base ISO DR, then I can see how that'd bother you. OTOH, I think it's perfectly fine to weight base ISO DR far more heavily than high ISO DR b/c: (1) not doing so runs the risk of rating all similar size sensors roughly the same, and how does that help a consumer actually understand the *differences* between sensors?; and (2) if you shoot in an 'ISO-less' manner (even partially), you can - for a sensor with high base ISO DR - retain far more DR at high ISOs than the actual measured DR for any given higher ISO. Which - for me - makes the higher ISO DR numbers meaningless, and only the base ISO DR number relevant.