Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on June 04, 2012, 10:06:16 pm
-
FYI
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Canon-s-EOS-5D-Mark-III-Stumbles-Against-Rival
Marc
-
.....and then you use the camera and realize what a load of crap some of these test results are.
The pricepoint is ridiculous,relative to the competition, but the camera is a far better machine than the Mkll
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
I am with Mark Tomalty on this one and I've shot a fair amount with the D800, D800E as well as the 5D Mark III. No it isn't a 36mp camera but it does best the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III.
-
Hi,
What DxO mark says is that the D800 has better image quality than the 5DIII when both are optimally used.
DxO also says that the 5DIII sensor has inproved little over it's predecessor.
Regarding the Nikon D800 it's a giant leap from it's predecessors. Compared with the D3X it's a giant leap in price/performance and compared with the D700 it's a giant leap in resolution and ow ISO read noise.
Best regards
Erik
FYI
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Canon-s-EOS-5D-Mark-III-Stumbles-Against-Rival
Marc
-
... the camera is a far better machine than the Mkll...
Yawn...
-
I love the banter between comparing the new Nikons and Canon DSLR bodies. It reminds me of the Mac vs PC, Mac OSX vs Windows conversations.
A very important point that seems to never get mentioned in all of the articles comparing the Nikon D800 and Canon 5D Mark III is the fact that it can takes years and lots of $$$ to build a collection of branded lens and accessories. Personally, I've been using Canon cameras since high school and I'm going to my 40th reunion next year. Currently, I have the new 5D Mark III, the 1Ds Mark III, and a bunch of Canon L lenses and Zeiss 21, 50 and 100mm fixed lenses. Changing brands would be a very expensive proposition. More than likely, by the time I completed the conversion, Canon will come out with a new DSLR body that tops the Nikon and I will have regretted making the change.
There's no doubt that the Nikon D800 is an exciting advancement in sensor resolution and dynamic range, however, my friends, family and clients love my photos now and I don't think that they wouldn't appreciate the difference in camera bodies anyway.
Cheers.
Bud
-
Lense investement, and the invested time in learning each "system" will no doubt slow down the rate at which people switch brands. Lense lineup may cause some to stick to one brand "no matter what". At least those who contemplate $3000 DSLR houses.
I do believe that there will be more people switching from Canon to Nikon than the other way around in this segment. The longer we have to wait for a Canon to come with a model that beats current state of the art (rather than their own, older models), the more people will switch.
-h
-
Bud James is a very smart, practical guy.
-
Yawn. It's the driver, not the car.
-
Camera body is relatively short lived investment, however the lenses and experience with one system is long term investment.
- Nikon was more honored in film era
- 1999 both companies stared digital
- 2002 Canon made FF camera(1Ds Mark) , however Nikon only after 5 Years!
- 2008 Canon (5D Mark II) made DSLR capable to make movies, Nikon only after more than 3 Years!
- 2012 Nikon got back the lead (D800e) dynamic range, resolution etc.
P.S. In past lot of cameras was announced in photokina, probably this year also there will be something new...
-
... Changing brands would be a very expensive proposition...
And that is exactly what makes us (or some of us), Canon owners, so furious: we feel like we are held hostage of our lens investment, that we are taken for granted and taken advantage of by Canon. They refuse to innovate, to go in the lockstep with the latest technological advances, justifying it as simply "our dummies have nowhere to go, after investing so much into our system... hahahahahaha" (insert here a mental image of your favorite 007 villain :))
-
So long story short, same as always, no one has a perfect camera yet. If you want the better landscape kit go D800(E), if you want the better wedding (low light) kit go 5DIII.
-
And that is exactly what makes us (or some of us), Canon owners, so furious: we feel like we are held hostage of our lens investment, that we are taken for granted and taken advantage of by Canon. They refuse to innovate, to go in the lockstep with the latest technological advances, justifying it as simply "our dummies have nowhere to go, after investing so much into our system... hahahahahaha" (insert here a mental image of your favorite 007 villain :))
Actually I had done the opposite several years ago switching to Canon with the 5D being the first affordable FF DSLR, I too am disappointed in Canons lack of competitive sensor design but they did take a large marketing risk with the first electronic lenses (EOS) and pioneering the CMOS sensor so I think there is hope for them in the future. I'm keeping my Canon lenses for that day.
Marc
-
They refuse to innovate
No, they refuse (if indeed it's a matter of "refusal") to innovate in a way which a tiny - but extremely, depressingly, garrulous - subset of the customer base (that miniscule part of the customer base that thinks it needs "amazing" base ISO DR off the camera) has recently decided is the only thing that matters.
I say "off the camera" because any Canon user with half-decent conversion and PP techniques under his belt (and I don't mean multiple exposure HDR techniques here) can make the supposed "superiority" of some Sony sensors in comparison to the Canon alternatives, all but vanish - it's not that hard to get far more effective DR out of Canon files than some here would have us believe is possible.
Despite all of the noise from some quarters about Canon's lack of sensor innovation, I've yet to see the image from a Sony-sensored camera that would be impossible to duplicate with a comparable Canon, and I reckon that Canon is smart enough to recognise hype when it sees it...
For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm saying that for the vast majority of photographers, "best in class" base ISO DR is an irrelevance, and I reckon Canon gets that.
-
... any Canon user with half-decent conversion and PP techniques... can make the supposed "superiority" of some Sony sensors in comparison to the Canon alternatives, all but vanish...
Care to demonstrate?
-
No, they refuse (if indeed it's a matter of "refusal") to innovate in a way which a tiny - but extremely, depressingly, garrulous - subset of the customer base (that miniscule part of the customer base that thinks it needs "amazing" base ISO DR off the camera) has recently decided is the only thing that matters.
If that part of the customer base is so miniscule, it seems odd that the D800 is in such short supply and that waiting lists are so long. Do you think the problem is due to Nikon withholding supplies of the camera, or is perhaps due to their factories and production lines being so small? ;D
-
Camera body is relatively short lived investment, however the lenses and experience with one system is long term investment.
Partially true. On the other hand, when you start to factor in the cost of brackets, flashes, brand specific accessories,... that ends up being pretty significant.
But I agree, it is comforting to know that the only cost I'll have to bear in case Canon releases a body delivering superior value for what I do is that of a small adapter for my wide set of F mount lenses. ;)
Since Canon lenses cannot be used on Nikon bodies, investing in a Canon system now pretty means staying stuck with their bodies whatever they decide (not) to release, or suffering from a heavy financial loss the day you have enough and decide to move to another brand since you'll have to buy lenses again.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I say "off the camera" because any Canon user with half-decent conversion and PP techniques under his belt (and I don't mean multiple exposure HDR techniques here) can make the supposed "superiority" of some Sony sensors in comparison to the Canon alternatives, all but vanish - it's not that hard to get far more effective DR out of Canon files than some here would have us believe is possible.
The same techniques can also be applied to Nikon or Sony cameras.
What you seem to be saying is that Canon DR is _sufficient_ for most scenes and good photographers. That may well be right, just like the 12 MP of the Nikon D700 might have been sufficient.
-h
-
I see the complainers are for the most part not full time shooters, just hobbyists.
Nail on the head...describes a lot of 'discussions' on the internet about photography..
-
It is all very obvious.
There was/is a format if you needed superior base ISO DR and high resolution - Medium Format. Nikon have with the D800 reached a tipping point when resolution is high enough and base ISO DR actually exceeds MF so that many (not all) MF shooters consider the Nikon D800 a real alternative. This is clear in all MF forums. It is similar to when MF digital got good enough to be an alternative to 4x5" film.
Canon has not reached that tipping point. That is a huge difference. Canon will eventually get there though.
-
I see the complainers are for the most part not full time shooters, just hobbyists.
I dont think that you can "kill" a discussion or a line of thought by claiming that everyone having a viewpoint different from yours are hobbyists, amateurs, or don't know how to use their cameras. I think it is good for you that you are satisfied with your tools.
Because most every 5DIII owner I know personally or have read comments from unanimously feel that the 5DIII is a fantastic money making workhorse. And non of that has anything to do with DXO or dynamic range, blah blah blah.
Is the question how to make the most money? Then I believe that photography is generally a bad choice no matter what?
The 5DIII is overpriced, not way around it. But since shooting with it over my previous 5DII, the higher number of tack sharp frames with AF has increased.
I dont think that anyone dispute that the mk3 is an improvement over the mk2.
The bickering here is just a waste of time. Buy what you can afford, can use, and can make the best of. Tech will always improve, obviously.
But why buy anything less than the best you can afford? I dont get your logic. _If_ the D800 is a somewhat "better" camera than the 5Dmk3 for a given photographer, why should he go for the 5D? So rather than throwing arguments about how much better Canon are than they were 4 years ago, or how much better they are than their customers, or how much money you can make from a 5Dmk3, I think it would make more sense for you to argue why Canon is a better camera than similar or cheaper products from competitors.
The irony is how many "photographers" complain about cameras, the companies and the such. I wish the camera companies would come along and say, "You know guys, we make damn good cameras, in fact we make cameras far better and with more features than you photographers can make good photographs."
I am an amateur. Sometimes I do not get exposure just right. Sometimes I do not get AF just right. (I often do not get the scene like I had envisioned or hoped.) If Canon or Nikon are able to help me make a larger percentage of my images salvagable, why should my money be any less worth than yours?
-h
-
But why buy anything less than the best you can afford? I dont get your logic. _If_ the D800 is a somewhat "better" camera than the 5Dmk3 for a given photographer, why should he go for the 5D? So rather than throwing arguments about how much better Canon are than they were 4 years ago, or how much better they are than their customers, or how much money you can make from a 5Dmk3, I think it would make more sense for you to argue why Canon is a better camera than similar or cheaper products from competitors.
-h
I agree that at the moment D800 is the best, however Your point about to get the best body in market is ridiculous. If after some time canon will make better camera then You should switch back...
What i like is that the competition is getting stronger and canon cant no longer rest on its achievements in past....
-
...however Your point about to get the best body in market is ridiculous. If after some time canon will make better camera then You should switch back...
Of course no-one should shift system every 6 months.
Please read my post as if I took that point for granted, or left it out to avoid bloat.
As a Canon owner I hope and believe that there will be other reasons to stay with the brand than existing investement in the future. The quality of raw files is important to me, but I am occasionally frustrated at how little emphasis manufacturers seem to put into it. (no doubt they put "many" people into that departement, but it seems to me that they could redirect even more resources from "toy-like" features). Of course, I am argueing from my own personal needs, they probably know their core US and Japan buyers better than I do...
-h
-
Of course no-one should shift system every 6 months.
During the past 30 years I have changed systems 4 times: Canon - Nikon - Olympus - Minolta - Canon digital (2002). During the digital era I am on my third set of bodies, but still using mostly the same lenses. For me the advances Nikon has made with D800 and D4 is big enough reason to switch to those bodies as the lenses also are in the need of replacement and Nikon is now making better glass also. After 10 years I will be retired and I already have my retirement camera, X-Pri1...
-
I mean no offense, but the only people I really want to talk about photography and cameras with are those people who shoot day in day out for clients and have to work on deadlines, work with subjects, maintain computers and gear so everything works all the time. Anything less is a hobby and as such is not as important...
No offense as well, but that makes as much sense as saying that the only people you really want to talk about sex are prostitutes ;)
-
I mean no offense, but the only people I really want to talk about photography and cameras with are...
When posting on a public forum like this, professionals and non-professionals may reply.
You come out as someone eager to defend your own choices. That happens to professionals as well as amateurs, we have all been there. I think that a good "cure" for that is to steer the discussion towards facts and objective truths, not "who gets to speak".
-h
-
Having the best tools of any kind is a silly notion. Tomorrow there is something better and that continues on forever.
It continues only for as long as there are significant numbers of people interested in buying the best tool.
-
No offense as well, but that makes as much sense as saying that the only people you really want to talk about sex are prostitutes ;)
:D :D :D :D :D
That's about as good a comeback as one could hope for. Thanks for the laugh!
-
I mean no offense, but the only people I really want to talk about photography and cameras with are those people who shoot day in day out for clients and have to work on deadlines, work with subjects, maintain computers and gear so everything works all the time. Anything less is a hobby and as such is not as important.
Go hang out in the "pro business" forum!
For the record, you've got it all upside ... who wants to sit around and talk about 'work' with other people from 'work'?
'Work' is not important ... 'hobbies' are. Work is just what you do so you can afford your hobby ... duh.
-
I just returned from a shoot in Chicago. It was a life style shoot for mockups for a campaign. I took the D800, but I really wanted to use my EF lenses, particularly the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2. I rented a 5D3.
As to IQ, looking closely, the D800 wins. However, the 5D3 is solid, fast and awesome. It feels as solid as a 1d series, maybe as solid as a Nikon F5. I believe that it is the better camera body. And it takes the 1.2 EOS lenses. I went to Best Buy under the Willis Tower right after the shoot and bought one. It doesn't FEEL like a 5 series, it fels like a smaller 1d series. I just wish it had the 1ds3 VF magnification.
As others have stated, the D800 is the better choice for landscapes (DR and resolution) while the 5d3 is fantastic for lifestyle, fashion, documentary. I really enjoy the camera.
-
I mean no offense, but the only people I really want to talk about photography and cameras with are those people who shoot day in day out for clients and have to work on deadlines, work with subjects, maintain computers and gear so everything works all the time. Anything less is a hobby and as such is not as important.
Then the only photographers you'd be speaking to would be commercial photographers, as well as photojournalists who shoot for short-period print media (e.g. newspapers) - neither of whom do their own postprocessing.
Your average wedding photographer spends most of their time postprocessing, not shooting images.
As for landscape photographers, we spend very little time shooting, but lots of time planning shoots, and getting to places to shoot (which can sometimes be several weeks' hike).
But each copy of a large print we make can sell for more than an entire wedding.
-
I love the banter between comparing the new Nikons and Canon DSLR bodies. It reminds me of the Mac vs PC, Mac OSX vs Windows conversations.
It does indeed.
See: Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty (http://gizmodo.com/5555953/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty).
And: Apple causes 'religious' reaction in brains of fans, say neuroscientists (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-causes-religious-reaction-in-brains-of-fans-say-neuroscientists/)
-
i'm co-shooting a moving image project with some stills all this week for a pharmaceutical client, we are using a 5dIII and a D800.
we haven't argued or even discussed what is 'better' just got on with the job, both cameras are better than what we used before.
the editor has no problem mixing the footage.
-
It would be helpful if someone were to list all the essential features that are exclusive to each camera, and by essential I mean features excluding personal idiosyncrasies, likes and dislikes related to ergonomics, menu arrangement, button positions, and general handling.
For example, we know that the D800 has higher resolution and better DR to a degree which is significant if the print is large enough and if the scene is of sufficiently high contrast. There's no doubt about that.
We know that the 5D3 has a higher frame rate of 6fps instead the 4fps of the D800. Clearly this is of significance in certain circumstances, shooting fast-moving subjects for example. On the other hand this advantage of the 5D3 is somewhat mitigated by the fact that one can also get 6fps with the D800 by lowering resolution to DX mode, which is 15mp. The D800 in those circumstances then hands over the resolution advantage to ther 5D3, but in doing so the D800 creates an additional advantage, in certain circumstances, which is often attributed to the cropped format, namely the longer reach with a given lens.
For example, let's consider the scenario of two photographers out shooting wildlife, both carrying a 400mm lens but one photogrpher using a 5D3 and the other a D800. A rare species of bird flies by. Both photographers raise their camera in auto-tracking and continuous mode. The 5D3 owner thinks to himself, I'll get better shots than my colleague because I can use 6fps. However, the D800 owner switches to DX mode and effectively gets a 600mm lens as well as 6fps.
Now which camera is likely to produce the sharper and more detailed shots of the bird, viewed at equal magnification on monitor or print? ;D
I've seen it mentioned that the 5D3 LiveView feature is easier to use for manual focussing, but there's so much confusion on this issue it's difficult to know whether the 5D3 has a real advantage in this respect, or whether the problem is due to the D800 simply having an additional feature of 'exposure simulation mode' whereby the light being projected on the D800 LiveView screen is limited by the size of the aperture selected, requiring one to set the lens to maximum aperture for maximum brightness, which is no big deal.
The other source of confusion here is the fact that the D800 allows for greater magnification of the LiveView image, 23x as opposed to 10x for the 5D3, so any comparison of LiveView image clarity should be at equal magnification to avoid confusion.
Nevertheless, the LiveView monitor on my Canon 50D does produce a consistently brighter image than my D800E (I've just compared it as I write this, after setting the D800's monitor brightness to its maximum of +5), so I would have to concede that it is very likely that the 5D3 really does have a more useful LiveView monitor for critical focussing of dark or poorly lit scenes.
Since I don't own a 5D3 and haven't even explored all the features of my D800E yet, there may well be other significant features exclusive to each camera. For example, I believe the range of shutter speeds that can be set when autobracketing ISO is more useful on the D800.
-
No, they refuse (if indeed it's a matter of "refusal") to innovate in a way which a tiny - but extremely, depressingly, garrulous - subset of the customer base (that miniscule part of the customer base that thinks it needs "amazing" base ISO DR off the camera) has recently decided is the only thing that matters.
I say "off the camera" because any Canon user with half-decent conversion and PP techniques under his belt (and I don't mean multiple exposure HDR techniques here) can make the supposed "superiority" of some Sony sensors in comparison to the Canon alternatives, all but vanish - it's not that hard to get far more effective DR out of Canon files than some here would have us believe is possible.
Despite all of the noise from some quarters about Canon's lack of sensor innovation, I've yet to see the image from a Sony-sensored camera that would be impossible to duplicate with a comparable Canon, and I reckon that Canon is smart enough to recognise hype when it sees it...
For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm saying that for the vast majority of photographers, "best in class" base ISO DR is an irrelevance, and I reckon Canon gets that.
what a fanboy...
-
No, they refuse (if indeed it's a matter of "refusal") to innovate in a way which a tiny - but extremely, depressingly, garrulous - subset of the customer base (that miniscule part of the customer base that thinks it needs "amazing" base ISO DR off the camera) has recently decided is the only thing that matters.
I say "off the camera" because any Canon user with half-decent conversion and PP techniques under his belt (and I don't mean multiple exposure HDR techniques here) can make the supposed "superiority" of some Sony sensors in comparison to the Canon alternatives, all but vanish - it's not that hard to get far more effective DR out of Canon files than some here would have us believe is possible.
Despite all of the noise from some quarters about Canon's lack of sensor innovation, I've yet to see the image from a Sony-sensored camera that would be impossible to duplicate with a comparable Canon, and I reckon that Canon is smart enough to recognise hype when it sees it...
For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm saying that for the vast majority of photographers, "best in class" base ISO DR is an irrelevance, and I reckon Canon gets that.
With the two huge, yawning gaps of studio photographers and landscape photographers, including studio photographers who shoot on location using outdoor lights. Wedding, event and news photographers - the 'photojournalist' types - maybe they don't care, and live at ISO 1600 and above. But, for others, the ISO switch is something that exists only in theory...
-
Go hang out in the "pro business" forum!
For the record, you've got it all upside ... who wants to sit around and talk about 'work' with other people from 'work'?
'Work' is not important ... 'hobbies' are. Work is just what you do so you can afford your hobby ... duh.
speak for yourself. i talk about 'work' all the time and about other visual media that influences or inspires that work with other creatives i know/socialise with.
not everyone has a working life that only exists to fund the non-working time.
-
They [Canon] refuse to innovate, to go in the lockstep with the latest technological advances ...
I have previously argued against the Panglossian denials from some Canon enthusiasts of the clear lag in Canon's sensor technology compared to that of Sony/Nikon (and also of Panasonic, and whoever is responsible for the sensor in the Olympus OM-D E-M5). But I will defend Canon against this accusation of not innovating. While Canon has not yet caught up on the advantages of on-sensor parallel A/D conversion, it has just launched a couple of innovations in its new DLSR, the 650D, that are firsts for a DSLR, even though others have done the same in mirrorless systems:
- PDAF sensors embedded into the main sensor, as in the Nikon One system sensor
- stepper motors moving small internal focussing lens elements for AF (better with CDAF and for silent operation with video), as in recent m43 lenses from both Olympus and Panasonic.
So neither is really pioneering, but both show the willingness and ability to adopt good new ideas from any source, even when they are "NIH" (Not Invented Here). So I do expect Canon to close the gap on sensor design with its next generation, though that might be a few years away.
I will also note that a lot of the most exciting innovations are coming from the bottom up. Maybe the 5D3 defenders are right that even for most professional usage, 35mm format cameras like the 5D3 are good enough in resolution and dynamic range, and I am fairly sure that high ISO, low light performance is now very close to the physical limits of photon shot noise, at least with a Bayer CFA.
If so, then apart from the extreme technical image quality needs of the small cohort for whom the 5D3 IQ is not completely "good enough", where will the most useful innovations take us? I am guessing on two directions:
- eliminating the film-era baggage of a mirror in the viewfinder (including eliminating Sony's transluscent mirror)
- downsizing: bringing that "good enough for most professional photography" image quality to smaller, lighter, more widely affordable "form factors".