Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
- Thread starter jrista
- Start date
- Status
L
Loswr
Guest
ATTENTION LetTheRightLensIn: Be advised that heretofore and forthwith, some of my posts in this thread and in other past and future threads, on this forum and on other forums not to be named, may contain content that is for entertainment value only, with no expressed or implied informational content. Futhermore, be cognizant of the fact that posts which are intended as humorous, flippant, sarcastic, or sardonic will often in no way be explicitly labeled as such. Moreover, you are hereby notified that such humorous, flippant, sarcastic, or sardonic posts are not in any way, shape or form to be construed as being personally directed at you, nor will or should posts of the aforementioned nature be deemed to require a response, reply, riposte, or rejoinder.
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
But if you upscale then you also enlarge the 7D noise and muck so....
Lots of canon cameras have horiz banding at high iso. The 5D3, however, is one that does very well in that regard.
I was talking about ISO100 though since that is the place where the Canon lagging in DR occurs.
It may not have had to though, from a canon person (non-DSLR division):
"As I posted before, Canon had no interest in a very clever solution to increase DR, that was produced by our company, which is a Research division of Canon Inc. The idea was patented and won an award and would have worked with existing sensor tech. "
maybe there was something more to it and it would not have actually worked for their DSLRs, but claim was Canon management didn't even let their DSLR divison engineers see it and just told the other external associated research division guy to basically get lost, we don't care, DR whatever.
To be fair maybe DSLR execs just were abrubt and didn't explain things well and had good reasons to toss it off.
were did 4.4 come from?
less misleading than comparing non-normalized numbers
unless you want to tell someone that a 4MP FF camera based on 10D tech would do better at high iso than a 30MP FF camera based on 1DX tech....
how did you get from over 3 to 4.4 and now 6?
jrista said:
But if you upscale then you also enlarge the 7D noise and muck so....
Lots of canon cameras have horiz banding at high iso. The 5D3, however, is one that does very well in that regard.
I was talking about ISO100 though since that is the place where the Canon lagging in DR occurs.
It may not have had to though, from a canon person (non-DSLR division):
"As I posted before, Canon had no interest in a very clever solution to increase DR, that was produced by our company, which is a Research division of Canon Inc. The idea was patented and won an award and would have worked with existing sensor tech. "
maybe there was something more to it and it would not have actually worked for their DSLRs, but claim was Canon management didn't even let their DSLR divison engineers see it and just told the other external associated research division guy to basically get lost, we don't care, DR whatever.
To be fair maybe DSLR execs just were abrubt and didn't explain things well and had good reasons to toss it off.
were did 4.4 come from?
less misleading than comparing non-normalized numbers
unless you want to tell someone that a 4MP FF camera based on 10D tech would do better at high iso than a 30MP FF camera based on 1DX tech....
how did you get from over 3 to 4.4 and now 6?
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
C'mon, do I really have to put <sarcasm> or <tongue-in-cheek> or <yuk it up, these are the jokes> tags all over my posts? Really?!?
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
it gives a fair relative comparison
apparently yes ;D ;D
even more considering that you got some +1000000 100% correct replies too
;D
anyway i have sooooooo many shots to edit and am growing tired of this thread, so i will go
neuroanatomist said:
it gives a fair relative comparison
apparently yes ;D ;D
even more considering that you got some +1000000 100% correct replies too
;D
anyway i have sooooooo many shots to edit and am growing tired of this thread, so i will go
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
Jokes and sarcasm aside, there are already a lot of people who assume that digital photography allows you to make mistakes and correct them, no matter how bad they may be. You only have to listen to comments like "you have a nice camera, you must be able to take good pictures". It is at the stage that people assume that it is the camera that takes the shots and the talent (or lack) of the photographer is irrelevant. This is only reinforced by the various discussions over dynamic range, particularly when people are trying to recover four stops of shadow detail. Phototgraphy is essentially an art and part of that art, is making use of the available equipment to get the best shot possible and if it was too easy, it wouldn't be the challenge it is. While dynamic range is an important part of overall image quality, as far as I'm concerned, it isn't the most important factor and shouldn't be used to determine how good or bad a camera or even the sensor is. I strongly believe that shadows are a very important part of an image and while you don't want the whole image blocked up, presence of shadows that hint at detail are much more dramatic in an artistic image, than a complete lack of shadows, because all the detail is visible. That said, my style often involves processing that does lose some of the shadow detail at times. Not all of my images are like that by any means, but certainly a signficant amount of my landscapes are. To benefit me, a sensor would need an extra 6 stops of dynamic range anyway, as I often use 5-6 stops of graduation on the sky, so an extra 3 stops is pretty much an irrelevance. Even then though, I still feel that I would lose dramatic effect if I had those extra 6 stops of usable DR and would still prefer to use graduated filters. Maybe I'm just old fashioned in that respect.neuroanatomist said:
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
Before we used to butt heads over gear vs the photographer (skills), now we have to add PP (skills) as the third leg of this trifecta of these considerations...
Kernuak said:
Before we used to butt heads over gear vs the photographer (skills), now we have to add PP (skills) as the third leg of this trifecta of these considerations...
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
I plus 1 billioned it cause I thought it was both funny and had a grain of truth in it...yeah it was obvious sarcasm! LOL
So lets go back to some sense ---
"The 5d3 is designed to be a beast of a wedding/event camera. It can handle most other stuff well too, but it is designed first and foremost as a wedding camera. The D800 is designed to be a studio/landscape camera. Both are very good at what they are designed to do. Kind of just wish people would realize that and move on...lol"
What else should I say? sorry that Canon made a camera that is quite awesome for what I do? It's not that I don't see how more DR would be of help, but, for me, the High ISO and AF capabilities more than make up for it - for me.
Now to point out again some other stuff I said earlier -
The grass is always greener...
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I plus 1 billioned it cause I thought it was both funny and had a grain of truth in it...yeah it was obvious sarcasm! LOL
So lets go back to some sense ---
"The 5d3 is designed to be a beast of a wedding/event camera. It can handle most other stuff well too, but it is designed first and foremost as a wedding camera. The D800 is designed to be a studio/landscape camera. Both are very good at what they are designed to do. Kind of just wish people would realize that and move on...lol"
What else should I say? sorry that Canon made a camera that is quite awesome for what I do? It's not that I don't see how more DR would be of help, but, for me, the High ISO and AF capabilities more than make up for it - for me.
Now to point out again some other stuff I said earlier -
Chuck Alaimo said:
The grass is always greener...
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
Well if you actually do want it to be more than your original title and post were about
then I will toss you a bone:
yeah the D800 LCD has an 'interesting' color balance. The 5D3, while among the best accuracy for DSLR LCD still isn't really good enough to know it is at least good enough to get a vague general sense of what is going on color and balance wise which can't really be done many times with the D800 LCD.
the D800 liveview has a worse implementation, worse than even on some of their cheap cams, in the end it still works for stills though, even if not as good, but for video shooting it can make it not the nicest thing to work with for some things for sure
the one side of the AF was calibrated the wrong way isn't so good, but it is not intrinsic to the D800 and not all of them have it and the ones that do will get fixed, but yeah it's an infinitely bigger production flaw than the whole 5D3 light leak thing, which even though basically a non-issue, appears to have been fixed long ago for all 5D3 users while many D800 users are still fighting with Nikon service for a more serious production mistake.
(as for AF on a good copy of both, I don't know. The 5D3 one shot AF seems to be working really well and it seems that paired with certain very recent Canon lenses it will outdo the precision the D800 is capable of, although with all the other lenses it might be closer to same ball park but the 5D3 is probably still just a little better anyway. For AI Servo I haven't gotten to try it in a serious way with the D800 and not enough yet with the 5D3. Some people say 5D3 is definitely better for that stuff, but some say D800 is a little bit better, I don't know. I'd guess 5D3 is better in the end, but just a guess.)
jrista said:
Well if you actually do want it to be more than your original title and post were about
then I will toss you a bone:yeah the D800 LCD has an 'interesting' color balance. The 5D3, while among the best accuracy for DSLR LCD still isn't really good enough to know it is at least good enough to get a vague general sense of what is going on color and balance wise which can't really be done many times with the D800 LCD.
the D800 liveview has a worse implementation, worse than even on some of their cheap cams, in the end it still works for stills though, even if not as good, but for video shooting it can make it not the nicest thing to work with for some things for sure
the one side of the AF was calibrated the wrong way isn't so good, but it is not intrinsic to the D800 and not all of them have it and the ones that do will get fixed, but yeah it's an infinitely bigger production flaw than the whole 5D3 light leak thing, which even though basically a non-issue, appears to have been fixed long ago for all 5D3 users while many D800 users are still fighting with Nikon service for a more serious production mistake.
(as for AF on a good copy of both, I don't know. The 5D3 one shot AF seems to be working really well and it seems that paired with certain very recent Canon lenses it will outdo the precision the D800 is capable of, although with all the other lenses it might be closer to same ball park but the 5D3 is probably still just a little better anyway. For AI Servo I haven't gotten to try it in a serious way with the D800 and not enough yet with the 5D3. Some people say 5D3 is definitely better for that stuff, but some say D800 is a little bit better, I don't know. I'd guess 5D3 is better in the end, but just a guess.)
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Let me be blunt: the final DR difference to the photographer between these sensors is FAR LESS than it is made out to be in forums. A little bit less highlight/shadow detail, or a little bit more noise in the shadow detail, is not going to be the make-or-break difference in a shot except to pixel peepers who argue in forums.
I shove some of my RAW files around pretty hard, the bulk of which have been Canon 7D files. Pretty much every wide luminance range situation I've been in falls into one of these two categories:
* I can see that there's a little more noise on the print in the shadow detail then there might have been with another body. But nobody else notices or cares because their nose isn't on the print. I still got the shot, they still love it, end of discussion.
* I shot and merged multiple frames, and I would have had to with any current body.
So at the end of the day am I out right missing shots because of using a Canon body rather than a Nikon one? Nope. Yes, I'm picky. Yes, I would like to see Canon get around the Sony patent. Yes, I would like a little more room to recover, a little less noise and more DR. No, it's not stopping me from doing anything.
I'm far more concerned with Canon's pricing than their sensor DR. The 6D should undercut the D600. The 5D3 should undercut the D800 and be more expensive than, but close to, the D600. And Canon's new 46 MP monster should be priced to compete with the D800. Instead everything is more expensive because Canon perceives itself to be at the top right now, despite sensor differences. And in terms of lenses I would say they are.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one greatly enjoy your flippant, humorous, sardonic sarcasm.
Upvote
0
Nishi Drew said:
So where did you read about these 'problems'? On a forum I suppose. Especially the AF one is repeated over and over....
NO, the D800 has bloody marvellous AF. Fast and accurate. This rumor is a leftover of the QC problem they had with left focus alignment in the beginning. It's gone now. Get over it.
NO, it does very well indeed with high ISOs. Not compared to a 1Dx of course, but that's not a reasonable comparison, is it.
NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)
As to the OP's question - 'Who said Canon cameras suck?' - Well it sure wasn't me. They're excellent cameras. Get over it.
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
Uh, now I'm not with you. If you tend to upscale your 7D images, you REALLY need a D800. If 18MP doesn't do it then 36 is going to be a WHOLE lot better, because then you can generally gain IQ rather than lose it when downscaling a D800 image rather than upscaling a 7D image.
And DR will in fact be more than 2.3 stops better, since one gains DR with increasing resolution and vice versa. So yes, there IS a benefit of the D800.
jrista said:
Uh, now I'm not with you. If you tend to upscale your 7D images, you REALLY need a D800. If 18MP doesn't do it then 36 is going to be a WHOLE lot better, because then you can generally gain IQ rather than lose it when downscaling a D800 image rather than upscaling a 7D image.
And DR will in fact be more than 2.3 stops better, since one gains DR with increasing resolution and vice versa. So yes, there IS a benefit of the D800.
Upvote
0
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
Your missing my point. I'm not saying the 7D will produce better upscales. I'm saying that upscaling a D800 image will not magically fabricate another 2 stops or more dynamic range. Dynamic range is a HARDWARE TRAIT!! Why don't people get that? The friggin sensor has an average read noise level of around 3 electrons, and a maximum saturation point (at ISO 100) of 44972 electrons. Those FACTS about the D800 sensor DO NOT CHANGE, no matter what you do with software.
Lets just screw comparisons for a moment. Let me ask a simple question:
If you photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of dynamic range with a D800...can you capture every distinct level of luminance in that scene with the D800?
Most people would say YES. Simple fact of the matter is, your 1.2 stops short!! I don't really give a damn how software wizardry, with a bit of dithering in a clever scaling algorithm can mimic a higher dynamic range when scaling my beautiful 36.3mp images down to the native size of a late 1990's DSLR. What I care about is whether I can photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of real-world DR, and GET IT ALL. Simple fact of the matter is the D800 CAN NOT DO THAT. It could capture the entire dynamic range of a real-world scene that contained 13.2 stops between its brightest and darkest points, but not one that contained 14.4 stops. If I try to capture the 14.4 stop scene, I have to give up something. Either I give up 1.2 stops worth of shadow detail, or 1.2 stops of highlight detail...or perhaps 2/3rd of a stop of both shadow and highlight detail...but the damnable hardware aint gonna capture it all. If I upscale in post, so I can print at say 40x30 or 60x40, I'm not doing a damn thing to minimize noise (on the contrary, I'm scaling noise up as well, so it's going to become more apparent...particularly on my computer screen), so the benefit of using the D800 over the 7D is...well, still 2 stops.
BTW, FYI...upscaling does NOT normalize noise...it exacerbates it because you sample the same source pixel to generate multiple output pixels. You can only produce anemic output pixels (in the destination space) that are sourced from insufficient original information. You can't average noise during upsampling (as a matter of fact, you actually distribute it.) Only when downscaling can you normalize noise, because you reference many noisy input pixels to produce a less noisy single output pixel. You sample multiple inputs, average their values, and produce a better output pixel (in the destination space) that contains rich information. Even with downscaling though, it doesn't take a particularl intelligent mind to realize you can't generate more than TWICE THE LUMINANCE RANGE (1.2 stops worth) in a downsampled image from a source image that only contains 13.2 stops to start with.
Fishnose said:
Your missing my point. I'm not saying the 7D will produce better upscales. I'm saying that upscaling a D800 image will not magically fabricate another 2 stops or more dynamic range. Dynamic range is a HARDWARE TRAIT!! Why don't people get that? The friggin sensor has an average read noise level of around 3 electrons, and a maximum saturation point (at ISO 100) of 44972 electrons. Those FACTS about the D800 sensor DO NOT CHANGE, no matter what you do with software.
Lets just screw comparisons for a moment. Let me ask a simple question:
If you photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of dynamic range with a D800...can you capture every distinct level of luminance in that scene with the D800?
Most people would say YES. Simple fact of the matter is, your 1.2 stops short!! I don't really give a damn how software wizardry, with a bit of dithering in a clever scaling algorithm can mimic a higher dynamic range when scaling my beautiful 36.3mp images down to the native size of a late 1990's DSLR. What I care about is whether I can photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of real-world DR, and GET IT ALL. Simple fact of the matter is the D800 CAN NOT DO THAT. It could capture the entire dynamic range of a real-world scene that contained 13.2 stops between its brightest and darkest points, but not one that contained 14.4 stops. If I try to capture the 14.4 stop scene, I have to give up something. Either I give up 1.2 stops worth of shadow detail, or 1.2 stops of highlight detail...or perhaps 2/3rd of a stop of both shadow and highlight detail...but the damnable hardware aint gonna capture it all. If I upscale in post, so I can print at say 40x30 or 60x40, I'm not doing a damn thing to minimize noise (on the contrary, I'm scaling noise up as well, so it's going to become more apparent...particularly on my computer screen), so the benefit of using the D800 over the 7D is...well, still 2 stops.
BTW, FYI...upscaling does NOT normalize noise...it exacerbates it because you sample the same source pixel to generate multiple output pixels. You can only produce anemic output pixels (in the destination space) that are sourced from insufficient original information. You can't average noise during upsampling (as a matter of fact, you actually distribute it.) Only when downscaling can you normalize noise, because you reference many noisy input pixels to produce a less noisy single output pixel. You sample multiple inputs, average their values, and produce a better output pixel (in the destination space) that contains rich information. Even with downscaling though, it doesn't take a particularl intelligent mind to realize you can't generate more than TWICE THE LUMINANCE RANGE (1.2 stops worth) in a downsampled image from a source image that only contains 13.2 stops to start with.
Upvote
0
NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)
[/quote]
That's just silly, as somebody who processes thousands of images per weak, I can assure you, image size makes a big difference, and if you don't need more than about 20MP, double that is a waste.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
